hubris
New Member
Posts: 1
Likes: 3
|
Post by hubris on Apr 14, 2018 7:04:28 GMT
According to Khun, science itself had its own limits. Every scientific method is contained in its paradigm, its mode through which it understands the world. It reaches its limit at a certain epoch in history. But given this thesis, we are thus perpetually lost in our own confines, never reaching anything grounding (in-itself) but only engaging in constant re-discovery and re-formulation. What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 14, 2018 7:11:18 GMT
Yes, I believe science does have its own limits. And hmm I guess I agree with the rest too. What were your thoughts on it?
|
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Apr 14, 2018 8:20:41 GMT
Yes, science absolutely does have limits. It’s used to test things, but even so it cannot test everything.
|
|
Kym
New Member
Posts: 30
Likes: 7
Country: Australia
Ancestry: Hominid
Age: Palaeolithic
|
Post by Kym on Apr 14, 2018 9:15:06 GMT
Hubris?
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 14, 2018 9:17:10 GMT
Does that mean something to you? Just looks like a strange word to me  |
|
Festtt
New Member
Posts: 15 
Likes: 11
|
Post by Festtt on Apr 14, 2018 10:00:32 GMT
You can't say if science as a whole has limits or not. We are very much still new to this world and are still explorers. We are limited because of where we are currently in our development. However we have no idea if there is a final limit where our efforts wont take us further. We can talk about the limits of science operated by us in our current state and the limits we experience right now but I think that's it. Saying science itself has limits can be seen as arrogant as it implies the person thinks he/she knows more than he/she does. We just don't know, we're still infants.
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Apr 14, 2018 13:51:03 GMT
Does that mean something to you? Just looks like a strange word to me  Hubris = arrogance, insolent pride [haughtiness],
but the simple "Hubris?" does not make sense. Does it refer to a person, to science, or what???
|
|
Kym
New Member
Posts: 30
Likes: 7
Country: Australia
Ancestry: Hominid
Age: Palaeolithic
|
Post by Kym on Apr 14, 2018 13:53:48 GMT
Does that mean something to you? Just looks like a strange word to me Don't make read that definition to myself Elizabeth (troublesome theists!) (chortle) |
|
|
|
Post by just10sp on Apr 14, 2018 18:53:36 GMT
Questions of how and why which are answered by science will always be a field in which people partake in. I do not think we can currently see it’s limit, and that would mean that our world is finite, which we are not entirely sure of to begin with. Whether we will ever reach a max capita of understanding and logical evidences for simply what has always been there since the start of creation and the rising of humanity and possibly a few million years before and after is way too farsighted. However if the world is infinite, never ending, multidimensional (as space orbital cameras have shown, that we live in a universe that resembles the mind and brain of a human), then no not in 100 billion years would we ever have a sudden halt, we may however find we are so advanced we no longer have the need for these things. As a Christian who believes in God’s Kingdom, and the New World I imagine things will be quite different after some form of world catastrophe takes place, WWIII I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by argonaut on Apr 14, 2018 19:13:59 GMT
According to Khun, science itself had its own limits. Every scientific method is contained in its paradigm, its mode through which it understands the world. It reaches its limit at a certain epoch in history. But given this thesis, we are thus perpetually lost in our own confines, never reaching anything grounding (in-itself) but only engaging in constant re-discovery and re-formulation. What are your thoughts? What does it exactly mean that science has its limits? Of course methods can provide only certain level of understanding of problem. Then you come up with better, more precise theory and find its limits. And than you repeat. Is the limit of science same as convergence of series? Does it mean that this sequence of improvements of understanding some fenomenon will reach point at which we fully comprehand it? Or is limit of science inability to produce newer, improved theory? Can you test this limits? And does it really matter? There are so many problems, that it will never be solved. Especially not in our lifespans. There are even classes of problems that contain infinite variations of some problem. You can not solve all of them, and there is no universal answer. |
|
07h3rw153
New Member
Posts: 8
Likes: 4
Age: Young
|
Post by 07h3rw153 on Apr 15, 2018 10:22:38 GMT
Science definitely has limits, as Immanuel Kant states it in the preface of Critique of Pure Reason, natural science (Physics, Biology etc) that aim at understanding the world and are based on inductive reasoning cannot give any information about metaphysical question, that is questions beyond what it is possible to experience. Questions like "Is soul immortal ?", "Why is there something rather than nothing ?", "Is anything absolute" etc are just beyond the realm of possible and no science will ever be able to definitely settle on one accepted answer. Also, following Russel's inductive turkey example, inductive reasoning can never give any information about the world, only mere guesses. If tomorrow the sun doesn't rise and that our current theory can't explain why then they'll just falsified and we'll build new ones. That is not -- likely -- to happen but it can happen. In the other hand, exact sciences like arithmetic are not sciences per say since they can't be falsified. They rely on axioms you have to admit in order to do anything, and they cannot be proven themselves. So those sciences have no limit other than these axioms. If you want to extend it, you just remove some axioms. |
|
Festtt
New Member
Posts: 15
Likes: 11
|
Post by Festtt on Apr 15, 2018 14:58:33 GMT
Questions like "Is soul immortal ?", "Why is there something rather than nothing ?", "Is anything absolute" etc are just beyond the realm of possible and no science will ever be able to definitely settle on one accepted answer. Why? |
|
07h3rw153
New Member
Posts: 8
Likes: 4
Age: Young
|
Post by 07h3rw153 on Apr 15, 2018 19:51:35 GMT
Questions like "Is soul immortal ?", "Why is there something rather than nothing ?", "Is anything absolute" etc are just beyond the realm of possible and no science will ever be able to definitely settle on one accepted answer. Why? Because those are outside what the realm of what is possible to physically experiment. To know anything thanks to science, you have to: 1 - make observations 2 - induce a theory 3 - test (not just observe) the said theory in a controlled environment. For those metaphysical (beyond physics) questions, you can make observations and induce a theory but you cannot invalidate it in case it is false since there is no way of testing if the soul is immortal (for example). Those unproven theory that cannot be invalidate is what you call religion. |
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2018 20:22:35 GMT
Yes, science absolutely does have limits. It’s used to test things, but even so it cannot test everything. More than simply to test. Science is used to explain and to mathematically model the physical phonomenons we encounter. |
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Apr 15, 2018 20:26:17 GMT
Yes, science absolutely does have limits. It’s used to test things, but even so it cannot test everything. More than simply to test. Science is used to explain and to mathematically model the physical phonomenons we encounter. And yet it cannot explain everything |
|
