The road of science

[Cockadoodledoo]

Looking into the distant, distant, future,......
Do you see any limitations to the knowledge and applications of science?
Will all 'obstacles' on the road be removed?

 

[Nakosis]

Looking into the distant, distant, future,......
Do you see any limitations to the knowledge and applications of science?
Will all 'obstacles' on the road be removed?

What I expect is that intelligence, in its effort to prevent complete entropy will eventually create a singularity which will become the next universe.

Of course we've eons before that happens so we've got quite a ride until then.

So basically, whatever form that intelligence takes will be the "God" of the following universe.

 

[sun rise]

Science is the lens through which we find out how the universe works. I don't see any limits to our complete understanding of that how.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Looking into the distant, distant, future,......
Do you see any limitations to the knowledge and applications of science?
Will all 'obstacles' on the road be removed?

Well, at some point the sun gives out, and we'd better have found a way to identify life-sustaining planets, develop proper terraforming tools (considering even suitable planets may not have developed any life-sustaining life of their own yet) and create a safe way to navigate and travel the many many multiple light-years those potential planets will be away from our current location. In any event, I guess that makes my "limitation" the destruction of the Earth. Which could also happen in the much nearer future under any number of circumstances. The most probable being that we destroy it, or make it uninhabitable ourselves.

 

[Altfish]

I hope not, science discovering new things is always exciting.

 

[Augustus]

Do you see any limitations to the knowledge and applications of science?

Yes, everything that is not science will still not be science.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Looking into the distant, distant, future,......
Do you see any limitations to the knowledge and applications of science?
Will all 'obstacles' on the road be removed?

Depends upon our own limitations and the limitations of any equipment or tools that are used.

I think we will surpass our present level of technology by far, but I suspect there will always be something out of reach that science cannot approach.

 

[`mud]

Describe this `science` of which you speak ?
Does it determine our advancements, or restrict them ?
Do religions have any effect, or also interfere ?
I get confused at to your meanings.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Describe this `science` of which you speak ?
Does it determine our advancements, or restrict them ?
Do religions have any effect, or also interfere ?
I get confused at to your meanings.

Don't ask me, ask Wikipedia.....
www://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

I cannot speak for the future of religions.

 

[Sunstone]

Do you see any limitations to the knowledge...of science?

It seems all the sciences, whether "hard" or "soft", share at least one thing in common: They are all founded on the epistemic principle or requirement of reliable inter-subjective verification. Ideally, given enough time, there will come a day when we have reliably inter-subjectively verified everything there is to be reliably inter-subjectively verified. That is, when we have scientifically discovered everything there is to scientifically discover.

At that point, there will still be a few things in the natural world that we have not yet scientifically discovered because they cannot be scientifically discovered, not even in principle. For instance, we will not have discovered whether your qualia of feeling love is the same or similar to my qualia of feeling love. That is, we will not have discovered whether love feels the same to everyone. That is because the qualia of loving cannot -- even in principle -- be reliably inter-subjectively verified. And since it cannot, it is not open to being scientifically known.

The same goes for the qualia of consciousness, or the qualia of anything else.

So, to answer your question, even in an ideal future in which we have scientific knowledge of everything in the natural world we can have scientific knowledge of, we will not have scientific knowledge of some things.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Looking into the distant, distant, future,......
Do you see any limitations to the knowledge and applications of science?
Will all 'obstacles' on the road be removed?

I believe science will have its limitations as it depends upon reproduceability; and there are some aspects of the human experience where reproduceability is a far stretch.

Example #1: This morning, I was late to work; I woke up just a few seconds before the phone rang (it was work, asking where I was). The skeptic -- including myself -- would generally write this off as a coincidence; but too much coincidence is not a coincidence. There are just too many instances of examples of, what some would call "extrasensory perception" or "precognition" to dismiss it entirely as a myth (imho). I submit the tentative belief that human beings and other biological organisms have perceptions and senses that are beyond science to unravel because the conditions are so elusive and the conditions so delicate that reproducing these experiences would be nearly impossible.

Example #2: We'll most likely never be able to unravel the emergence of the universe, let alone what (if anything) existed before the "big bang". What science can do is extrapulate from evidence and mathematical formula the "most likely" theory; but will probably never be able to state with certainty definite knowledge of this mystery.

These are the two most poignant examples that I speculate why science has its limitations.

 

[Sunstone]

Yes, everything that is not science will still not be science.

I'm curious. In your opinion, what is the demarcation between science and non-science?

 

[Augustus]

I'm curious. In your opinion, what is the demarcation between science and non-science?

That's a (very complex) question of philosophy

Science must always have it's limitations though as the limits of science are defined by philosophy, not science.

 

[Sunstone]

That's a (very complex) question of philosophy

Isn't it though? I took my undergrad degree in philosophy with a core concentration in epistemology, logic, and the philosophy of science. Is there any particular demarcation theory that you happen to subscribe to? I'm genuinely curious, but I'm not interested in debating anything.

 

[metis]

Will all 'obstacles' on the road be removed?

Notta chance. If we solve one problem, history shows it just leaves us with more.

 

[Revoltingest]

Looking into the distant, distant, future,......
Do you see any limitations to the knowledge and applications of science?
Will all 'obstacles' on the road be removed?

It'll be more interesting if the universe becomes ever more complex as we understand more.

 

[Augustus]

Isn't it though? I took my undergrad degree in philosophy with a core concentration in epistemology, logic, and the philosophy of science. Is there any particular demarcation theory that you happen to subscribe to? I'm genuinely curious, but I'm not interested in debating anything.

I don't really have a clear explanation. I'm not smart enough for that.

There are things which clearly are science, and things which clearly are not. Where science ends and 'not science' starts is somewhat fuzzy though.

I'm not sure it is possible to create a set of clear and unbreakable rules that neatly allow us to box off science and abstract it from a broader field of enquiry into knowledge. Guidelines perhaps, but not rules.

Another question arises around when does practical science become 'unscientific' and does it then cease to be science? Is science carried out adhering to poor scientific practices still science or not?

Interesting topic, but not one I'm able to add many substantial insights on.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Sunstone]

I don't really have a clear explanation. I'm not smart enough for that.

There are things which clearly are science, and things which clearly are not. Where science ends and 'not science' starts is somewhat fuzzy though.

I'm not sure it is possible to create a set of clear and unbreakable rules that neatly allow us to box off science and abstract it from a broader field of enquiry into knowledge. Guidelines perhaps, but not rules.

Another question arises around when does practical science become 'unscientific' and does it then cease to be science? Is science carried out adhering to poor scientific practices still science or not?

Interesting topic, but not one I'm able to add many substantial insights on.

What are your thoughts?

Interesting views. Thank you! I've recently started reading up on the Demarcation problem again, largely because I'm doing some online tutoring these days, but also just for the geeky joy of it. Unfortunately I haven't gotten far enough in my readings to have found anything that I think solves it. So it still stands -- as far as I'm concerned -- more or less where it did 35 years ago. That is, we don't yet have an adequate explanation of what distinguishes science from non-science. I have hope, though.

 

[Quintessence]

Interesting views. Thank you! I've recently started reading up on the Demarcation problem again, largely because I'm doing some online tutoring these days, but also just for the geeky joy of it. Unfortunately I haven't gotten far enough in my readings to have found anything that I think solves it. So it still stands -- as far as I'm concerned -- more or less where it did 35 years ago. That is, we don't yet have an adequate explanation of what distinguishes science from non-science. I have hope, though.

Given that human categorizations of anything are necessarily constructs, I don't imagine the demarcation will ever be a fixed thing. It's the nature of constructs, yes? It seems all the vocabulary humans use to describe the world is ultimately some sort of construct. Even things that are taken for granted, like, say, labeling colors. It was an interesting thing taking a color theory class in college and seeing arguments erupt about where the color "green" ends and "yellow" begins. It's subjective, and the lines are only there because humans decide to put them there. And, since humans never entirely agree with one another, our maps of the territory are ever fluid.

There are more objective ways to approach things. Rather than argue about where "green" ends and "yellow" beings you can talk about the hue, saturation, and value in terms of a number without any other labels. How would an approach like that work for sciences? Not sure it could be done, given the sciences are not something that can be simplified into easy mathematical quantities. Oh well.

 

[Sunstone]

Given that human categorizations of anything are necessarily constructs, I don't imagine the demarcation will ever be a fixed thing. It's the nature of constructs, yes? It seems all the vocabulary humans use to describe the world is ultimately some sort of construct. Even things that are taken for granted, like, say, labeling colors. It was an interesting thing taking a color theory class in college and seeing arguments erupt about where the color "green" ends and "yellow" begins. It's subjective, and the lines are only there because humans decide to put them there. And, since humans never entirely agree with one another, our maps of the territory are ever fluid.

There are more objective ways to approach things. Rather than argue about where "green" ends and "yellow" beings you can talk about the hue, saturation, and value in terms of a number without any other labels. How would an approach like that work for sciences? Not sure it could be done, given the sciences are not something that can be simplified into easy mathematical quantities. Oh well.

Are you suggesting there is nothing that all the sciences share in common (then why call them "sciences"), and which is exclusive to the sciences (then why say anything is not a science?)?