What are the questions science cannot answer?

That is a transparent answer. I was going to state not reflective.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How many licks does it take to get to the center?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

transporters..(even if it couldn't transport organic material,it would still be benificial.)

how to fix humanity..

do i really want a world full of my clones..

will Q ever be nice...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

any "why"s..science's only good with "how"s..

also as somebody mentioned,the origins of stuff..for science uses given undisputed info to extrapolate and expand andbuild on them, for example, "why are the physical laws such as we know them,and not different?"

 

Thank you for the responses. Isn't it in theory there are no questions science cannot answer?

 

Just because it doesn't have cure now doesn't mean it never will.

 

To Mind over Matter

I think you are correct. It may still be that there are questions that cannot be answered, but we cannot know what they are. Perhaps the true answer to the question of what science cannot answer, is the question : "What questions can science never answer?"

 

Rubbish. The origins of bacteria's ability to digest nylon is quite well understood. Since you phrased your comment in the absolute, it's easily refuted with one single counter example. Next?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

 

What if we cant understand the answer. Will machines on day, in science answer a question, in a language that we are incapability of understanding due to our inferior intellect?

 

When will we achieve infinite knowledge?

Why do the laws of physics, gravity even exist as we know them?

Why do we exist?

Why does science take these concepts for granted to begin with?

 

Do you mean 'at this time'?

 

Your phrasing is odd

the origins of bacteria's ability

and I think you are not really responding to what he meant. Whatever you would say explains bacteria's ability is somewhere in what he is referring to, I think, as in the B-Z range.

 

because you are near. or is it because you appear.

so long ago that song.

 

What it is like to be a bat.

How it would feel if we were infinitely large.

If some other universe would have been better.

What it is like not to exist.

 

So... let's see here. I gave an example which proved your assertion false. I provided data about my example, and details on what it means. I showed that, yes... we can explain the origins of something using science.

You then responded that, "Oh no... There is actually a step before that, you just don't know it. You just can't see it, so you're wrong." And... somehow... you think your point is more valid than my counter?


Erm... okay. It's rather tough to penetrate self-reinforcing delusion like that using reality and evidence. I concede. Carry on.

 

The obvious

Most would suggest the purpose of life is beyond the realm of science.

But what about you? Any great, unanswerable questions that you wonder about?

 

Meaningless concept. That answer is "never".

That may be on the point of being answered as we speak - it is well within the apparent scope of current science

That too is probably within the scope of existing science - it may not be answered, but not because the answer is beyond the scope of science.

It doesn't.

To the extent the concept has meaning, I see no reason to place that beyond the possibility of investigation - certainly the context of life is within the realm, even now, and that's where a purpose, if any, would be found.

 

Most of the time these 2 questions are interchangeable. For example, science does a good job of explaining why the sky is blue.

 

Your response is inadequate, I don't think you quite understand my question it is why should the laws of physics and we exist at all and also if we appeared out of nothing then we are possibilities only, we may or may not exist and how does nothing give rise to anything, nothing by definition is not anything even referring to nothing is misleading as if it's something.

 

Things are not proven in science. Two, you were responding to someone else's post, not mine, despite my clear use of the 3rd person.

You are using the term 'origin' differently from each other. Further is odd that the 'thing' you chose to provide the 'origins' of is an ability. Is an ability a 'thing' How does one slice up reality so one can reify this process and say it begins here and before that is some other 'thing'.

Amazing that you actually put quotes around that as if I wrote it.

I was pointing out an equivocation at the heart, I think, of your difference with THE OTHER POSTER. You can use that as potentially helpful information for your discussion with him or her, or not. I really do not care what you choose to do.

And you end up, in your ignorance of what I was doing and that I was not the other poster, going to an ad hom.

I will ignore your posts from here on out.