Lab
See how this opinion breaks down by gender, political spectrum and generation — and who shares your view.
Gender
7 comments
For this question, I put neutral since the wording of the question is vague and requires more clarification as to what exactly does "thing" refer to.
Karl Popper, a philosopher of science, writes that falsifiability is the criterion that determines whether a proposition is subject to scientific enquiry. In other words, as long as a proposition has a valid logical disproof, then that proposition is within the scope of scientific enquiry. A very common example is the proposition "all swans are white". While it is impossible to prove this statement using induction (since even if I give you one million white swans, there might still be an undiscovered black swan), the statement itself is falsifiable (if I find ONE black swan, then the statement is false).
To explain why I put neutral, I will give two perspectives to illustrate both sides.
Applying this principle of science, everything within observable nature certainly belongs to science. For example, to falsify Newton's gravitation, the statement "an apply flies towards the sky" would do. To falsify Copernicus' heliocentrism, the statement "the Sun orbits the Earth" would do. To falsify the atomic theory, the statement "substance can be divided infinitely times" would do. All of these falsifying statements are logically possible and possible to be observed, so, by definition, all topics in nature are indeed within science's reach.
However, a problem occurs when the "thing" referred to is not within nature. A common example given is the statement "this angel has large wings". To falsify this statement, one must prove that "all angels have large wings", which is not possible, since angels (as claimed by religions) are supernatural and we cannot possibly observe them.
Hence, whether this opinion is right or wrong depends on how we define "thing".
Totally agree here. I love how you emphasize that what we consider to fall within the realm of science always has the potential to change. Quantum Field Theory, for instance, which to date is actually the most successful physical theory we have come across (it can, according to Phillip Ball, a science writer, in his book Beyond Weird, "explain" every experiment we have ever done) is a theory that seems deeply odd and oftentimes metaphysically intensive. But the more we learn about it, the more the notion of what science even is changes. (Although, perhaps, it doesn't change when viewed at a certain level---the level of experimentation, etc. What we invoke to explain, say, where the outcomes of an experiment are coming from might change in the face of Quantum Field Theory's theoretical work, but the scientific method of experimentation stays somewhat similar. So far it seems that the human scientific method knows its limits, for better or for worse--oftentimes, actually for better! But that doesn't mean it doesn't at least have the enormous potential to change. Quantum Field Theory is the greatest exemplifier of this for me.)
Depends on what's being asked. Are there some things that science can't ever explain, or are there things science can't explain so far?
It is well known that certain things in this existence always remained outside the purview of science. Even the most modern version of the science today, that is quantum mechanics, cannot "explain" everything but only "describe", that too in a probabilistic language.
I think the essence of science is to try and explain everything, and I think everything has a reason (even if sometimes it is random chance). So whether we can answer everything with our current level of scientific understanding is clearly out of the question, I believe that if we continue our scientific pursuits then we can explain everything (provided that we don't go extinct).
YET...
So neutral it is!
We have a tendency to be a bit biased to our human senses by only seeming to study things that activates one and/or more of our senses... A selfish species, really.
But to scientists' defense, it is hard to know where to start and how to determine any measurable indicators when you cannot see, smell, taste, hear, or touch the mystery matter.
Well if we're talking literally then no. Science cannot explain everything. But I don't believe anything just happens. There's science behind everything. And I'm not discrediting religion. Actually there were a good amount of great scientists that were religious (on a spectrum). I believe we can have science and religion. But that's not the point.
The point is that science does not claim to have all answers. A good scientist actually can admit that they do not know the answer. That's the whole point of science, to find that answer. There are many phenomena that have not been explained by science yet. But that's the key word; yet.
Make the case or invite a friend to comment!