RE: If someone says science can't explain everything what's the best way to repond?
August 23, 2016 at 1:26 pm
It all depends on why the statement “science cannot explain everything” was made in the first place.
The results of natural science have always been tentative and incomplete because it is a work in progress. If a subject falls within the domain of natural science then in is justifiable to point that out. For example, how did life begin? That question falls within the domain of natural science so it is justifiable to reply by saying that biologists don’t yet know exactly how it happened but that it is reasonable to assume that as knowledge progresses we will come closer to the answer.
That said, the methods of natural science have an appropriate domain. The value of pi is not empirically determined by measuring various circular objects. The ontological status of mathematical objects is not a question for natural science. Likewise, the scientific method cannot make inquiry into the nature of being as such or the nature of causality. Natural science uses logic but doesn't explain why reason is effective. Of necessity it takes those for granted. And it cannot speak to intentionality, meaning, or purpose. In cases such as these, the idea that science cannot explain everything is simply another way of saying that someone is relying on the wrong means to inquire about something.
The results of natural science have always been tentative and incomplete because it is a work in progress. If a subject falls within the domain of natural science then in is justifiable to point that out. For example, how did life begin? That question falls within the domain of natural science so it is justifiable to reply by saying that biologists don’t yet know exactly how it happened but that it is reasonable to assume that as knowledge progresses we will come closer to the answer.
That said, the methods of natural science have an appropriate domain. The value of pi is not empirically determined by measuring various circular objects. The ontological status of mathematical objects is not a question for natural science. Likewise, the scientific method cannot make inquiry into the nature of being as such or the nature of causality. Natural science uses logic but doesn't explain why reason is effective. Of necessity it takes those for granted. And it cannot speak to intentionality, meaning, or purpose. In cases such as these, the idea that science cannot explain everything is simply another way of saying that someone is relying on the wrong means to inquire about something.
