Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
Well I don't think as a general statement, this represents an accurate view of science 'thinkers' nor of human imagination.
If I can see that science tools have their limitations, anyone can !
I think I agree that we need more tools but the process doesn't necessarily inhibit the development of them. (I would say, it actually enhances it).
Can you provide an example of what you mean ?
Let me also say, that for any axiomatic system, there will always be things outside of that system, which cannot be proven from within that system. This itself has been proven. (Godel's Incompleteness theorems).
Axiomatic systems are difficult to avoid. The universe may be one of them.
This aspect, combined with human ingenuity and inquisitiveness, may actually be the driver for continued tools development (and human breakthroughs).
Cheers
|
Ok Craig, tell me....what came before the BB??.
Quantum superposition of state requires that in order to have all these possible outcomes for any given system, there must be an infinite number of possible collapse states (Universes). They should exist....where are they?? What do we use to measure them and their states??
Relativity states that in the beginning, the universe was in a state of singularity, yet the existence of a singularity defies the rules of quantum physics. A singularity can't exist if the universe obeys quantum laws on the micro scale.
How about quantum entanglement....flies in the face of all Relativity. Einstein thought it was a joke...probably because he couldn't understand it. We still can't explain it.
What is life....explain to me what life is...what is its fundamental basis. You can't even explain it as a function of quantum physics, yet that probably has something to do with it w.r.t. how it interacts with physical existence.
The universe is only axiomatic because we barely understand it, even those parts of it we think that we do understand. We've hardly scratched the surface of it.
The scientific method has little if anything to do with imagination, or even thinking. It's a series of steps...a logical sequence of processes and outcomes...that is used to define and classify whatever is being studied. Anything that lies outside of the ability of the method to study and classify is deemed "unscientific". Therefore, it is limited in what it can study and discover if it is strictly adhered to as it is. You don't really need to think about what you're doing if all the steps are outlined for you. You will come to a conclusion that is within scientific parameters regardless of the "leaps beyond logic" you may do in the process. As you have put it on a number of occasions, if the question is beyond science to explain, then it is not science. However, that is only because we are limited by our knowledge of science and our methods of doing science reflect this.
Science evolves within and creates paradigms. Paradigms by their own definition have limits, beyond which the knowledge and methods within those paradigms cannot operate. Even if the present scientific paradigm encounters things beyond its limits it cannot, by definition, study them or acknowledge their reality because the reality of the paradigm will not allow it. It has to change in order to accommodate the new knowledge and paradigms have a bad habit of being rather inflexible and hidebound to established ideas.
In any case, if doing science is not in order to find the answers we seek to the questions we ask, then what is the point of doing it at all.