If someone says science can't explain everything what's the best way to repond?

[ReptilianPeon]

I've though about this one a bit. I think what the person, e.g. my parents or somebody in the street, is trying to say is: 1. God of the gaps (they don't know what advancements will happen) and 2. The supernatural is real and "science" can't explain it.

My idea is to simply agree with the person and remind them that, for example, archeology and mathematics are not sciences (maybe philosophy too?) and humanity has learned so much from those two fields. Nobody would claim digging up fossils or human artifacts is a kind of science experiment right? Even within science, some great discoveries are made without the scientific method: You have luck alone and armchair theorizing, as two examples.

Maybe I'm overthinking this and there is a simpler answer. One route a person might go down is to say "there is no way to measure love". In which case, I'll list the hormones associated with love and infer that by measuring those we can be sure a person is in love.

[rado84]

Tell them that the reason science can't explain everything is religion's fault. If it wasn't for the Dark Ages, brought by religion, nowadays science would have explained a lot more than they could have imagined. After all it's true.

[Jesster]

Saying that science can't explain everything is a baseless claim in itself. Maybe it can; maybe it can't. They have to provide evidence for that claim before it can be rationally believed.

The true statement is that science has not explained everything.

If there is another method that can discover or explain things better than science, they also have to back up that claim.

If someone makes a claim without justification, I can toss it out without justification.

[ReptilianPeon]

With a Christian that may be good, but a Muhammadan would start taking about the Arab Golden Ages and how they supposedly invented the scientific method (even though it goes back to ancient Greece and the Arabs merely improved upon what the ancient Greeks have them). It's crazy to think Christianity has become more open to new ideas and the Muhamnadans are less open. It's like they've switched places.

[chimp3]

With a Christian that may be good, but a Muhammadan would start taking about the Arab Golden Ages and how they supposedly invented the scientific method (even though it goes back to ancient Greece and the Arabs merely improved upon what the ancient Greeks have them). It's crazy to think Christianity has become more open to new ideas and the Muhamnadans are less open. It's like they've switched places.

The Islamic claim to a golden age of reason does not address the claim that science can not explain everything. What Jesster said.

[Ben Davis]

[SteelCurtain]

With a Christian that may be good, but a Muhammadan would start taking about the Arab Golden Ages and how they supposedly invented the scientific method (even though it goes back to ancient Greece and the Arabs merely improved upon what the ancient Greeks have them). It's crazy to think Christianity has become more open to new ideas and the Muhamnadans are less open. It's like they've switched places.

Even if a Muslim started saying that Islam invented the scientific method, they haven't proven that it doesn't work. In fact, they've sort of backed themselves into a corner. If their religion is responsible for the scientific method, wouldn't that mean that Allah is to credit for it? Wouldn't that make it unassailable?

To counter, the principles of ancient Arabs that allowed for the free flow of ideas and thoughts which fed the Arab Golden Age have long since been abandoned in deference to Islamic fundamentalism. Science and mathematics flourished despite Islam, not because of it.

[bennyboy]

Nothing to say. The Universe is big.

But making shit up isn't better than just saying, "I don't know."

[LastPoet]

I've though about this one a bit. I think what the person, e.g. my parents or somebody in the street, is trying to say is: 1. God of the gaps (they don't know what advancements will happen) and 2. The supernatural is real and "science" can't explain it.

My idea is to simply agree with the person and remind them that, for example, archeology and mathematics are not sciences (maybe philosophy too?) and humanity has learned so much from those two fields. Nobody would claim digging up fossils or human artifacts is a kind of science experiment right? Even within science, some great discoveries are made without the scientific method: You have luck alone and armchair theorizing, as two examples.

Maybe I'm overthinking this and there is a simpler answer. One route a person might go down is to say "there is no way to measure love". In which case, I'll list the hormones associated with love and infer that by measuring those we can be sure a person is in love.

Science is the best way we have to figure out how the world we live in, works. If we knew everything, there would be no need for science.

[Cyberman]

With a Christian that may be good, but a Muhammadan would start taking about the Arab Golden Ages and how they supposedly invented the scientific method (even though it goes back to ancient Greece and the Arabs merely improved upon what the ancient Greeks have them). It's crazy to think Christianity has become more open to new ideas and the Muhamnadans are less open. It's like they've switched places.

Even if a Muslim started saying that Islam invented the scientific method, they haven't proven that it doesn't work. In fact, they've sort of backed themselves into a corner. If their religion is responsible for the scientific method, wouldn't that mean that Allah is to credit for it? Wouldn't that make it unassailable?

It's even worse than that. They'd be saying that their religion invented the thing that can't explain everything; and that's coming from their so-called golden age. The tacit admission is that Islam was wrong then and even worse now. So what exactly is their argument, again?