Limitations of Science

Sometimes a great deal of needless controversy takes place regarding science and its status in human society. This debate can be avoided if a few facts about the ontology of science are properly understood. I will discuss some of them herein in the hope of removing confusion that is caused by the inherent misunderstanding of the scope of science in day to day life.

First of all, science does not have answers to all the questions that a human being comes across in his daily life. For this reason alone, science is not panacea for every thing; we need other things (in fact, many other things) besides science to have a harmonious life.

Religion may not be true in every thing and all respects, which it professes; in spite of all its shortcomings and weaknesses, humanity needs it. A philosopher may question the concept and existence of God as much as he may choose and show fallacies in the popular beliefs but when all has been said and done, majority of the human beings cannot live happily without believing in one kind or the other of God. It is true that the believers cannot prove the existence of God logically; at the same time, the non-believers (including scientists) can also not prove that God does not exist. Science is of little help in this age-old and ageless quandary. It is also true that Science seemingly has no place for God in the matters that it has dealt, and deals, with but then, as I have said above, science is not comprehensive enough to solve all the enigmas and mysteries of human life. At its best, it explains how the natural phenomena occur; it fails to explain why they occur. It will be foolish to replace the diversity of daily human life with the dry facts and monotony of scientific discovery; life wouldn’t be worth living on science alone. The exactitude of science, by itself, is not sufficient for human life; it also needs some eloquent hyperbole, irrational tidbits, romanticism of poetry and its beautiful metaphors and similes, art, culture, and all the other knick-knacks that lend color and charm to day to day engagements and entertainments. A verse of Ghalib, for instance, may not be scientifically accurate and succinct in its narration but its beautiful composition may bewitch us and assuage our aesthetic sense, all the same. Beautiful poetry which is expressive of sensitive sentiments and emotions is the nourishment of the human soul (whatever a ‘soul’ is in its philosophical meaning).

Same is true of culture. An agnostic or an atheist may not believe in a divine religion but at Christmas time, he may still want to exchange gifts and partake dinner with his near and dear ones. A freethinking and a secular Muslim may not offer his regular prayers or even the Eid congregational prayers but may still like to attend Eid reunion dinners and socialize with his (hers) loved ones. Science is hardly a substitute for Eid, Christmas, Holi, etc. or other religious and cultural festivals. Viewed in this respect, science though an important ingredient of human life, is only a part of it just like its many other parts and components. Science is not the whole substance of human life. Likewise, religion is no substitute for science. The historical conflicts that occurred between the two were due to the reason that religion (its protagonists) tried to occupy the role of science.

Confusion and Mutual Tension

Science is just another piece in the jigsaw puzzle of human life. For a harmonious adjustment and ambience, it should wedge in smoothly with its other adjacent pieces. There was trouble and turmoil in the history of humankind when science conflicted with religion and other mores of human faith and belief. Instances of such conflicts are well known and methods of mutual adjustment have been discovered to reduce the intensity of the consequent strife. Science, in the end, did triumph in such conflicts. While it is now generally understood by the contenders that the religious truths may not be literally true and are capable of appropriate alternative interpretation in ways in which the inherent conflict and contradiction between science and religion is removed and a symbiosis is determined for peaceful co-existence, it is also understood that figurative language and speech may not always necessarily be scientifically accurate and correct. Yet they may be quite meaningful in the context that they are used. Our daily life need not be scientifically correct in all details.

As an example, consider the statement of an optimist who looks at a half-empty glass and proclaims, “the glass is half-full.” A pessimist sees the same glass and says, “the glass is half-empty.” A dialectician who is obsessed by philosophical correctness, may say, “the empty space in the glass has the same volume as the filled space.” The dialectic statement may be more accurate but is indeed ‘ugly’ in the perspective of our routine usage of language. The other two statements are reflective of the human temperament and attitudes while the dialectic statement is neutral and devoid of any pathos.

As another example, consider Yogi Bera’s saying, “Ninety percent of baseball is mental, the other half is physical.” The numbers in this saying do not neatly add up but we understand exactly what Yogi meant. In addition, it has a lighter side to it, which is the spice of life and at the same time opens a window on the persona that Yogi embodied.

People like me know Yogi Berra only from his sayings, which have now become proverbial like “When you come to a fork in the road, take it”.

In concluding this essay, I would like to mention three areas, as follows, in which science has limitations, according to Lynn Fancher (1):

• Science can’t answer questions about values. For example, there is no scientific answer to the questions, which of these flowers is prettier? Or, which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?
• Science can’t answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of science.
• Finally, science can’t help us with questions about the supernatural.

In spite of the above limitations, science has helped man to understand, explore and exploit nature and natural phenomena a great deal. On the one hand, man has landed on the moon and sent exploratory vehicles and probes to the Mars and on the other, he has split atoms, harnessed the hidden atomic energy and constructed sophisticated theories to understand the intrinsic nature of the matter. Some aspects of the quantum theory, which came into being at the beginning of the twentieth century and is still evolving, are so complex and mysterious that we do not fully understand their physical essence yet. In spite of this, there is optimistic anticipation that we will be able to build quantum computer in the near future, which will use these very mysterious aspects to speed up computation exponentially.

Reference

1.Fancher, L, “The Limitations of Science,” http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/Limits.htm