Is Science Incomplete?

[Nick Soapdish]

This subject came up in a different thread and I thought it might be an interesting subject to discuss in more detail, particularly for anyone with an interest in mathematics.

Kurt Gödel is generally regarded as the most significant mathematician from the 20th Century. He was a close friend of Einstein and his Incompleteness Theorems turned the world of mathematics on its head. The two theorems are stated as follows:

1. For any consistent formal theory including basic arithmetical truths, it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement that is true but not included in the theory. That is, any consistent theory of a certain expressive strength is incomplete.

2. For any formal theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent.
​

Here is a Time magazine article with an easier to understand description (with a funny picture of Gödel): http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/godel.html

A popular worldview is one that demands all of reality to be built from mathematic relationships. All things are eligible to observation, which in turn means we can measure them, which in turns means we can represent them with mathematical constructs. Following this, there would be no truths that could not ultimately be reduced to mathematics.

Does Gödel's theorems make this impossible? The theorems do suggest that it would not be possible to formalize all of the laws of physics, as then we would have to assume the system is either incomplete or inconsistent. So what are the possible options?

1. Gödel is wrong. This is tough to argue because his theorems have withstood 70 years of intense criticism and review.

2. The laws of physics are inconsistent. Considering the modern state of physics, it is tough to buy this one.

3. There are an infinite number of laws of physics. If this were the case, it would mean physics is infinitely complex and it makes you wonder how we could comprehend any of them.

4. There exists greater truths that transcend formal mathematics. This is the one I believe.

5. atofel's interpretation of the theorems is wacked.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The question was " Is science incomplete?"
Even without mathematical theory, It would seem obvious, that as of now, it is very incomplete.
as time goes on it will not be a matter of filling the Gaps, as refining the theories so that more is included.
Whole areas of science relating to time space gravity and matter and their associated theories can be expected to reveal surprises in the future.


Terry_____________________
Blessed are the merciful, mercy shall be shown unto them.

 

[Nehustan]

In answer to the thread title I'd have to say that Science by it's nature is incomplete, it is a constant striving for the uncovering of truths. It should never think it has uncovered all truths, if it does it stops serving its inherent function.


thus fmo the options presented I guess the closest one to my opinion a combination of number 3 (tho' I don't believe there is an infinite number, just what our finite minds would see as an unperceivable number, which as they become comprehendable cease to be so untangible) and number 4, as I believe there is a truth which cannot be explained by anything other than faith, certainly not by math. Math may suggest of it's existence but cannot prove it.

 

[maggie2]

Science is certainly not complete, nor is it likely to ever be complete. Science is a tool we use to learn new things and as such there will always be someone searching and seeking new information...thank God!

 

[Nick Soapdish]

The question was " Is science incomplete?"
Even without mathematical theory, It would seem obvious, that as of now, it is very incomplete.

True, but the point of the post is whether science is inherently incomplete... is it doomed to be incomplete, no matter what.

 

[Nehustan]

True, but the point of the post is whether science is inherently incomplete... is it doomed to be incomplete, no matter what.

I think if you were to carry out census with the scientific community they would resoundingly (in fact I'd be suprised if it wasn't 100%) state that the nature of Science is its inability to ever be complete, with good science being built on the premise of paradigm shift.

 

[ladylazarus]

True, but the point of the post is whether science is inherently incomplete... is it doomed to be incomplete, no matter what.

Yes, of course. The idea that science can be "complete" is totally in contradiction to the principles of the scientific method. There is no end to knowledge. That doesn't change the fact that the scientific method is the most accurate way to understand the world around us, and the only reason we don't apply it universally is because we do not currently have the technology to do so.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

True, but the point of the post is whether science is inherently incomplete... is it doomed to be incomplete, no matter what.

The more we learn the more we find there is to learn.
There is no end to this.
Science is just the tool we use.
we may even find a new tool.

Terry______________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Of course science is incomplete. No scientist, or indeed any person of learning, would ever maintain that science has discovered all there is to know. Science is far more complete than it was a hundred years ago, but not nearly so complete as it will be a hundred years from now. Such is the nature of science. The more we discover and learn, the more we find there is to discover and learn.

Religion is what claims to be complete, not science.

And Re: the article. . . youzer. I read it, and will go back and read it again, but I am afraid my liberal arts formal education was far to weak in higher level math to keep up with that discussion. I leave that stuff to the MIT grads. If we have any in our midst, I would appreciate a nickel version of what that article was trying to say.

B.

 

[michel]

Well, this is a good argumentative thread


Like everyone else, I think science will never be complete.

 

[Popeyesays]

Well, this is a good argumentative thread


Like everyone else, I think science will never be complete.

The last time the Royal Academy of Science tried to declare that everything to be known was known about Physics was shortly before Einstein published his initial work on Special Relativity.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Nehustan]

"Nothing is true, everything is permitted." - Hassan-i-Sabah

Don't get me started on 'The old man of the mountain', now I think I'll whistle Hawkwind as I mentally wander to Alamut :sarcastic

 

[Nick Soapdish]

the scientific method is the most accurate way to understand the world around us, and the only reason we don't apply it universally is because we do not currently have the technology to do so.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Could you elaborate?

 

[Quiddity]

Religion is what claims to be complete, not science.

Incorrect. If that were so, we could easily show you evidence for God. There is much we don't know about God.

~Victor

 

[ladylazarus]

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Could you elaborate?

Yep. For example, neurobiology is pretty young. As technology advances we understand more and more about the precise chemical and electric interactions within the human brain, but for right now, and probably for a very long time, we still won't be advanced enough to understand precisely which chemicals cause which emotions, etc. The brain is just far too complex. For this reason, we developed the soft science of psychology. Soft sciences do not strictly adhere to the scientific method, whereas hard sciences do. A significant amount of the art produced in the world also serves the function of exploring emotion in an even less scientific way. As neurobiology advances and becomes more relevant, psychology will become less relevant, because why apply a soft science where a hard science is applicable? The hard science is almost always more accurate.

An example of a soft science that has already been overtaken almost entirely by hard science is physics, which used to be the domain of philosophers. However, as the models of Newtonian phsyics have proved ineffective on subatomic levels of interaction, we've developed quantum physics, which at this point is still in large part a soft science because we don't have the technology to strictly apply the scientific method to research done in that field. See what I mean?

Incorrect. If that were so, we could easily show you evidence for God. There is much we don't know about God.

Yeah, it must be pretty difficult. People have been trying for 3,000 years, and still no luck.