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

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I suppose the best response to the statement, 'Science can't explain everything' would be 'Religion can't explain any thing.' Assertions ('God made the world' or 'Jesus died for your sins') are not - by definition - explanations.

Boru

[Whateverist]

Science -can- explain everything; we as humans just haven't learned everything science has to offer yet. The science is there, the logic is there, the way the world works is there. Just because we can't comprehend it yet doesn't mean it's not there. Tell them "You think 2 plus 2 didn't equal 4 simply because humans hadn't invented math yet? Did oxygen not exist before we knew what it was?"

Another vote for "can too!"  It is obvious that atheists have plenty of faith.  Just not in god.  

Of course I can't really talk.  I've got faith too but in the garden faeries.   Oh, and in the GS Warriors to win another NBA title this coming season.  Oh, Oh!  And in the generosity of strangers.

[Anomalocaris]

Science -can- explain everything; we as humans just haven't learned everything science has to offer yet. The science is there, the logic is there, the way the world works is there. Just because we can't comprehend it yet doesn't mean it's not there. Tell them "You think 2 plus 2 didn't equal 4 simply because humans hadn't invented math yet? Did oxygen not exist before we knew what it was?"

How do you know whether there is any absolute limit to propagation of information such that it is physically impossible for science to even detect everything that may need explaining, much less actually explain them?

It appears modern cosmology implies some serious, perhaps insurmountable,  hurdles to propagation of information from much of the product of the Big Bang to the likely small portion of it that had ever communicated with even smaller part we can detect now.

[chimp3]

I disagree that the Arabs or the Greeks had science before the year 1500 AD. Science is an invention of the mid to late 16th century. Philosophy and mathematics , yes. Technology , yes. Not the scientific method.

[Ben Davis]

That said, the methods of natural science... cannot make inquiry into the nature of being as such or the nature of causality.

Bold for emphasis: I think you'll find that's exactly what they were created for.

Natural science uses logic but doesn't explain why reason is effective.

Yes it does, every time a scientific model matches demonstrable reality. It shows us why reason is effective not only on a meta scale but specifically in relation to each scientific model. For any given model, predictions must be made with full explanations as to why those predictions will generate their outcome. When both the result and the reasons match with demonstrable reality, the model is considered robust and a theory is born. The 'why' is a critical and inescapable element of Theory and the religious position that 'why' is some sort of transcendent, ethereal, elusive component of existence is nothing more than a tool used to separate people from their reasoning so that absurd propositions can be inserted in its stead.

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.

Now this statement has more merit although saying that science has no input to this is just wrong. By making observations of the world around us, taking actions and examining their results, making predictions and holding our experiences against them, improving and refining our actions to generate results more in accordance with our desires, learning from the actions and inactions of others, we can gain much personal knowledge of intentionality and psychologists, sociologists & anthropologists can gain insight to models through meta studies. Much the same is true of meaning and purpose. Once again, these are not external things foisted upon us will he, nil he and religious insistence upon this fallacy is telling; religion fears reason.

[Seraphina]

So what if science can't explain everything? Indeed, that's the beauty of science - constantly exploring and asking questions.
I would not trust a scientist that says she or he has all the definitive answers and likewise a religious person who says this isn't to be trusted either.

[abaris]

The obvious answer is: Don't be stupid.

[ScienceAf]

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.

If they don't think it can explain somethings, and that means god did it...

Then... Bash their mofo head's in with a hammer...


Of knawledgeee

[robvalue]

I'd say correct but irrelevant.

Science explains everything that we have learned about reality. That's literally what it does.

If we learn more, it will be through science. Not hocus pocus bullshittery.

[Thumpalumpacus]

"Don't try to hammer nails with a fish taco. Use the right tool for the job."