Three Fundamental Limitations of Modern Science

DaltheJigsaw

Currently, there is a sense that modern science will continue to advance indefinitely and will eventually discover a complete and consistent theory of the universe. However, as much as modern science has been making great advances, it has also been discovering its limitations. Some of the greatest discoveries of modern science are the discoveries of its own limitations.

In different fields of modern Western culture that are deeply related to the development of modern science, again and again, at different times and by different people, fundamental limitations were discovered. These limitations reduce the scope of modern science.

In three key areas, the essential problems share the common issue of a paradox. At the heart of modern physics, the uncertainty principle persists even in more advanced theories beyond quantum mechanics. In formal logic, the best-known tool of modeling human reasoning and understanding quickly falls into paradox. Even in philosophy, which still plays an essential role in advancing modern sciences such as physics, dualism and paradox are inescapable in rational deductions about the nature of the universe.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/36070/

genkaku

The Vedanta teacher, Swami Vivekananda, once wrote, "The mind (he meant the intellect) is a good servant and a poor master." For those who accept such an observation, I suppose it is easy to segue into the realm of the airy-fairy or the spiritual or some such. But I don't think that's necessary. The rational mind is, per se, limited. It is constantly relying on the past and has no ability to live, as we do, in the present. This is not an insult to the mind that longs to explain, find meaning, control, believe and so forth. It is just an observation.

The present -- or what might be called the master -- is not limited in this way. It is without edges and lies outside any rational 'grasp.' In its limitlessness, it poses what the rational mind calls a "paradox" -- limitlessness expressed through limitations like those the intellectual mind can cope with...I yam who I yam.

It is sort of interesting that what the intellectual or scientific mind may call a paradox is not similarly labeled by the present in which a paradox might be found.

Sometimes I think one of the benefits of spiritual endeavor is simply getting used to what the controlling, savvy and scientific mind may find abhorrent: Paradox. A and not-A are comfortable at the same time and in the same place. What's the big deal? Of course it can be quite a big deal to the intellect, but is it really that big a deal? I doubt it.

Just a little noodling.

zenff

The scientific method may have limitations and we probably will never understand everything completely.
So what?

Sometimes relativistic remarks about science will be followed with a hymn on the profundity of religious notions.
Wrongly so.
Religious notions have no limitations – true. But they have no factual basis either.

The scientific method is not perfect, but it is the best we have.

Religious tales must be seen as rafts, tools, fingers pointing at the moon.
They point at liberation, awakening, enlightenment and they do not need factual basis for that.

Imho!
At least this is how I try to practice Buddhism without beliefs.

Spock

Hmmm
I think a further limitation of modern science, and indeed Buddhism, is that many communicate in a way that does not extend knowledge.....language used is too complex.

tess

Leon, exactly.

Science is our attempt to understand the reality. We have math and theoretical physics to take us further. Quantum physics has shown us a very important fact: we don’t know reality.
Reality goes beyond our experience. Human’s materialistic common sense notion of reality is just an illusion. It only exists in our limited mind and brain.




Still it is the reality as we know.

In the Newtonian way and classical mechanics the world was measurable; the measurements revealed the true state of the world. We can understand what we think reality is, because we assume what we perceive is real.
Planck has shown that we cannot experience the physical reality beyond a certain limit.

The whole universe is an enormous wave function, with a huge possibility of different words and realms. Are those worlds real?

In quantum mechanics, there is no way of identifying the true state of the world. We can only predict the probabilities for different outcomes.

Has Buddha come with the answers? Some.
At the same time, he was very close and has added more to human psychology then many famous psychologists since then.

This is why I find Buddhism fascinating.

tess

The scientific method may have limitations and we probably will never understand everything completely.
So what?

Sometimes relativistic remarks about science will be followed with a hymn on the profundity of religious notions.
Wrongly so.
Religious notions have no limitations – true. But they have no factual basis either.

The scientific method is not perfect, but it is the best we have.

Religious tales must be seen as rafts, tools, fingers pointing at the moon.
They point at liberation, awakening, enlightenment and they do not need factual basis for that.

Imho!
At least this is how I try to practice Buddhism without beliefs.

:clap:

However, I would change the word ''practice'' to follow. :scratch:

Roger

Thanks for the chance to repeat this : I find it very soothing. :om:

Science always tells us what we do not know.

Aw heck..., here comes another one.

For every question it answers, science uncovers a dozen more questions. Therefore science will ALWAYS have way more questions than answers.



What it tells me? We are stuck in this human realm and science is a human invention. Because it is a human activity the scope of science will always be smaller than what it tries to explain.

It's not ultimately about the nature of the universe, it's really just about the nature of humans. Some clues among many? We can't handle paradox and we're stuck here for 80+ years.

Kunga

I think that one of the tensions that arise from the scientific view is between subjectivity and objectivity. Science seems fairly good at dealing with what is true objectively, or, what is true for all people. But it seems to fall short of the mark when uncovering that which is true for the individual. My truth may be unique. My existence, and the inherent truth of my existence, may not be accessible to any objective method of examination. In this regard, I have found science to be very limiting.

rachMiel

one of the main limitations i see is that science is trapped in the world of the relative. the Absolute is not measurable, not (scientifically) observable, not analyzable, which places it firmly outside the province of science. some eastern spiritual approaches call themselves "sciences" of being, but this is a very different use of the term, i think.

SherabDorje

I think we need to make the distinction between hard science and theoretical science here. Hard science helps people (usually). I have hard science to thank for being alive. Theoretical science, like quantum mechanics, can also be very elegant and bring us to a better understanding of the world and universe we live in. So for all those so-called limitations, a lot of good has been done.

vinlyn

I personally feel a mistake that some people make is expecting any one facet of life to have all the answers. For me Buddhism has some of the answers I am seeking. Christianity -- for me -- also has some of the answers. And, science has some of the answers.

Mankind has always had some great questions about our origins. Many of those answers elude us, and if we -- as individuals -- are ever to discover the answers, it is probably not during this lifetime.

tess

I think that living in the 21 century is hard.
Science told us that dogma of our ancestors is wrong.
It has given us more understanding of the universe and our surrounding. However, no comforting answers when it comes to our individual sense of self.