Thread: Science Explains Everything Challenge

Originally Posted by O'nus

Challenge:

Please name something that science cannot explain that something else can -besides personal revelation.

~

Well, seeing as how you apparently misinterpreted what I said, I think it's only fair to me that it get cleared up.

What I said was that science alone cannot explain everything. You took the liberty of assuming that, by that, I was implying that there was something else that could, which isn't true at all.

As I (and many scientists) had said, science is widely known as the best tool that we have for explaining natural phenomena, and the universe at large. But, scientific discovery is limited to what humans can perceive. We have to be readily equipped to detect a phenomena and its components, before we can explain it. Even if it's something invisible to our naked senses, we then have to rely on tools that we invent, to broaden our perception. Does this mean that we will ever be able to see all forces and energies that exist in the universe? No. It takes a human mind that is willing to travel down certain avenues and, in many cases, let go of dogmatic paradigms, in order to devote his/herself to such fringe areas of exploration, and even then, there is no guarantee that (being that the discovery falls upon the shoulders of the human scientist) whatever force is at work in a phenomenon will ever be discovered.

By saying that "science, by default, can't explain everything," I wasn't implying that we have a better system or tool that can. I was stating that sometimes science isn't enough, because it ultimately falls back on the will and open-mindedness of the person using science as a tool, and in many cases, that person (or those people) just do not have the perspective required to get to the bottom of something, sufficiently.

The origin of consciousness, for example, may never be fully explained. It does not mean that there is a better tool than science with which to explain it, only that - so far - human investigation and experimentation, using said science, has not been sufficient.

As an aside: A major flaw presented in why this whole thing came up (as is duplicated often) is that - when trying to dissent against psychic phenomena, the people who are dead-set in proving that it doesn't exist usually say something like "I know there is a perfectly good, scientific explanation for it." This, alone, proves bias. IF such phenomena do exist, then the explanation, no matter what it is, will be scientific, because it will likely be explained using the scientific method. Those people throw the word scientific around, as if it somehow clashes with the idea of the 'paranormal,' when in fact - should these phenomena exist - they aren't even 'paranormal'. They are just normal. They aren't 'supernatural'. They are natural. People try to discredit the possibility of their existing by constantly referring to them as such, even when evidence that they might exist has been expressly documented.