When discussing the limits of science, three
questions must be disinguished:
How far science MIGHT actually go or what are the practical
limits of science?
How far science SHOULD go or what are the moral limits
of science?
How far science COULD go or what are the theoretical limits
of science?
What is addressed here is the last issue. We will try to
investigate what science can discover not what it should
discover.
Before we get further we need to define the word "science".
The aim of scientific inquiry is to resolve our questions
about the "hows" and "whys" of natural
phenomena.
As science involved considerably during time, man has managed
to answer millions of questions... but something very peculiar
evolved as well.
For every answer given on principle of experience begot fresh
questions, which likewise require answers.
Kant's principle: "The answering of power factual (scientific) questions
always paves the way to further yet unanswered questions".
Note that the issue here is not, of course, the case that
we keep asking trivial questions about a particular answer
to a certain question.
Rather, the issue is that as we deepen our understanding of
the world, new problem areas and new issues are bound to "pop
up".
For example: As we discover that atoms are not really "atomic"
but actually have an internal composition and complexity of
structure, questions about the whole "subatomic"
domain become available for investigation.
So, actually answer the question of "why an atom is not
really an atom ?" opened a whole lot of new questions.
Knowing so, we can claim that no matter what answers are in
hand, we can proceed to dig deeper by raising yet further
questions about these answers themselves.
