In my last post I asked if Science can cover all forms of understanding and knowledge. Is scientific inquiry unbounded? I suggest that it does have bounds. Here are the reasons that I suggest this.
First, science is bounded by human understanding. Human beings are finite creatures. That is we have limits. In fact we have pretty clear limits. There are only so many years that one human being can research a subject. We do a good job of getting around this with writing. Through writing I can learn what someone before me discovered about say geology. This is a large part of why science keeps moving forward. Still the time that I spend learning from those who came before is time that I am not spending learning new things myself. It takes a decade or two to really master most areas of inquiry now. As our knowledge grows so will the time that it takes to master that knowledge. This is part of the reason people become specialists.
Another reason people become specialize is that human brains seem to be better at some forms of understanding than others. For instance, my older daughter does not do well in school. Now, shes not failing, but she does struggle and she has failed a class or two. Many would say she is not "smart". I suppose that is true as most people limit the definition of smart to academic pursuits. On the other hand, I have never seen her pickup an instrument that she could not play, essentially on the first try. She has played; piano, violin, saxophone, recorder, flute, guitar, bells, and various percussion instruments. Most she never had lessons for. The first time she picked up a flute she not only was able to play it, but was playing a couple of tunes in short order. She is also amazing with color and layout. That is they way her brain is wired. My younger daughter is more like me. She sees school as a nuisance and looks forward to getting on the Internet so she can learn something. She is essentially a straight A student (there are occasional B's especially in classes that really bore her like Math). In a similar way some scientists really grok physics, or meteorology. This is part of human nature, but it means that people need to be wired to really understand a subject. Rarely do people do well in multiple subjects and no one is good in all subjects.
Beyond the question of human understanding there are types of knowledge that are unknowable. I am not just talking about things we do not currently know. Psychology is an example of an area we currently know very little about. My discomfort with the term smart is an example. I have taught, and therefore have created tests. I know how difficult it is to create a test that will tell me objectively how much a person knows on a subject. There is an entire area of study just on testing. It is not an objective area of study, because we do not yet have objective measures for things like intelligence. So does that mean its not science? No I think the term should be fledgling science. Electricity was not well understood, just a hundred years ago. Still people with inquiring and skeptical minds worked hard at understanding electricity. The results, in addition to several areas of scientific inquiry, is that our societies and lives have been transformed. So I am not talking about things we simply do not know yet, when I say there are unknowable areas of knowledge.
So what is a fact that is not knowable. How about the start of the universe. We assume that the universe started some time some how, but how do you run an experiment on the origin of the universe? We cannot observe it. We can observe the after effects. We look around at the universe and presume that there was a start. This is based on our understanding of existence rather than on any objective facts that we know about the start of the universe. Everything has a start after all. Doesn't it? I feel comfortable saying that everything has a start even though I cannot prove it. If you spend a little time thinking about it I am sure you can come up with several other examples of things that we accept because they are obvious, rather than because they are provable. Some of those things are not worth proving, but some are actually unprovable.
Software Hygiene: Your Editor is Important
9 years ago