Science is a great and glorious enterprise-the most successful, I argue, that human beings have ever engaged in. To reproach it for its inability to answer all the questions we should like to put to it is no more sensible than to reproach a railway locomotive for not flying or, in general, not performing any operation for which it was not designed.
What do you understand about the statement above? Explain why it may be argued that science should be expected to answer all the questions that are put to it. Discuss giving examples, the extent to which science has its limits.
Science has made astonishing progress in increasing our knowledge about how the Universe works. However as the writer points out there are other forms of knowledge as well as the observational and deductive logic that science relies on. A person will use emotional knowledge to tell him whether he likes a piece of music or a painting. The quote tells us critics who complain that science does not have all the answers are right but that does not detract from the value of scientific work.
In an increasingly secular world many people see science as replacing religion. People are attracted to the open values of science and its evidence based approach. They feel that scientific methods could be applied to other forms of knowledge such as psychology and economics. The involvement of science in fields such as the arts has led to the expectation that eventually science will tell us everything, even such matters as why we are attracted to certain people as humans are just products of their biology.
Science will always have limits. Every new discovery will lead to many more questions. In a near infinite universe we cannot know everything. ‘The greater the island of knowledge the longer the shoreline of uncertainty’. Science cannot tell us how to resolve an argument, how to love or what is right or wrong. Empathy, [emotional knowledge] and ethics are different but important forms of knowledge. Science can be used in good or bad ways, for example the germ theory of disease can be used to prevent transmission of disease or in biological warfare. Scientific development should always be within an ethical framework.
We Don’t Live in a World Of Reality, We live in a World of Perception. What do you understand the above statement to mean? Provide examples of how we live in a world of reality and how we live in world of perceptions. What is the common ground between reality and perception.
Descartes, the famous philosopher imagined a world controlled by an evil demon creating false illusions; he concluded that the only way he could be sure that he existed was because he could think. The film, the Matrix, was based on this idea. Our view of the world is limited by our perception. Our vision, often regarded as our most important sense only detects a narrow range of electromagnetic wavelengths. Our other senses are similarly limited.
We live in a world of reality to the extent that our senses do not seem to lie. If I touch my desk it feels solid and occupies the space my vision tells me it does. When I call my sister she does hear me. This tells me that we do live in a world of reality. However science tells me that my desk is made up of atoms with enormous spaces between them and even within the atoms there is much more space than solid. Are my senses deceiving me by making it appear solid? We all know of examples of when perception is completely misleading such as in mirages.
It is important to realise that our picture of the Universe is limited by the perception of our senses. We only perceive a small fraction of the Universe. In the old story of the blind men and the elephant, one blind man felt the tail and declared it to be like a snake, another leg and said it was like a tree and so on. All of them were right but all were also wrong. We are stumbling around in the Universe in a similar blind way, reality and perception come together at times but we rarely see the full picture.