How does science explain things that cannot be explained?

Question

Is there really a physical world or is it all emulated in the mind? IF all that we sense is processed within the mind then could in theory could anything be possible? What are the laws of physics? Can they ever be cracked? If you are born blind, deaf, mute, cant smell, cant taste, cant feel... how do you explain your existance?

As they say... that logical thinking is handled on the left side of the brain while creative thinking is on the right... could religion and science basically just be a conflict between the 2 sides?

Should we just live our happy "physical" little lives without bothering to know who, where, when, how, what is this place that we call life. Because in 100+ years from now its not going to matter because we all should be dead "in theory"?


PS: WOW! thats some deep sh*t. Need to take a breather.. but yea... opinions are certainly welcome...

Are we just really getting nowhere? Finding out that we are just going around in circles!? Need to think outside the sphere! Sphere as the world! World with gravity! No escaping gravity! Not for free! Is man even designed to go outside the boundaries of our world? Or is this physical world the boundary of someone who limits one's self to the physical world? Shouldnt we just appreciate life as we know it?

Dont follow me. im lost too! (LOL kinda lost it there... sorry. xD)

Answer 1

The existence of the external world is axiomatic - Since you cannot prove it, you have to just take it as true without proof. As far as religion vs science is concerned, religious beliefs are probably born in our emotional decision-making apparatus whereas scientific ideas come from the rational parts of our brains. Finally, it's worth asking and answering questions simply because it's human nature to want to know.

Answer 2

What you really mean to say is that you think people might explain everything at some time in the future. Saying that science can or will in the future explain everything is not itself a scientific question. You are into the realms of philosophy and more precisely epistemology here; not science.Real science is always by definition open to revision on the basis of new results or interpretations. How do you know that knowledge itself is finite? Can you prove it is? If we knew everything, which is presumably a vast amount of information, how would all that be stored and who would be clever enough to check it out. It might take a few lifetimes, and one decimal point or number wrong would confound your assumption.

Answer 3

Yours is a more epistemological approach, interesting.

That which is not explained is only not yet explainable, for in a physical world there exist laws. For in a pure emulation, an immaterial projection of spirit and thought, there is the infinitude of possibilities.

When the fish is snatched by the fisherman's hook, the other fish may think "it's been summoned to its freedom!" while the snatched fish embraces its demise. In either aspect, whether freedom or doom, every moment of the snatched fish is its own, from the taste of the mucky water to the piercing sensation, too vapid and intense for description, to the loss of air and sudden confusion that overwhelms as death approaches.

Hegel taught that all history is the resolution of thesis and antithesis, the result being synthesis. To say that religion and science are conflicts between the two sides of the brain is myopic, because the two are not in conflict for the purpose of defeat, but for the purpose of fulfillment of understanding of that which is most real.

Consider that the reality of coca-cola, bottled fragrant shampoo, air conditioning and stain-free carpet is a dreamscape, or alternatively abomination, to the ones whose experience of reality is a torn t-shirt, dirt floors, the scent of wheat and corn in the fields, and the distant roar of thunder and ocean waves. Reality encompasses both the pauper and the patrician, the mendicant and the merchant, the snatched and that which snatches.

Ultimately, our reality is how we catch our fish.

Answer 4

Reason isn't in conflict with imagination. Logic is not counter to creativity. It is not a conflict which can be defined as a polar relationship between science/logic and faith/creativity

Religion is simply unreasonable. When I ask for credible evidence, I am not denying any imaginable alternatives. I am merely asking that anything that I do put faith into be supported. It is the same standard you probably use for faeries and unicorns.

Answer 5

I does not science only explains what can be explained.....other than that science is helpless. Science is not the limitless answer machine that most people think it is...in fact science is very much full of limits..if it can not be explained by science then it is in the realm of the paranoramal and the pseduoscientific

Answer 6

Present me something which cannot be explained (not -- cannot PRESENTLY be explained, but, cannot ever be explained), and you might be onto something.

Until then, this is just a complicated rewording of the problem of epistemeology to which the only proper answer is nihilism.

Answer 7

Actually, current Neuro pretty much discounts the left brain right brain thinking thing completely....you see, it turns out that if you are injured on the left side of the brain and were more left-brained than right afterwards, you're still more "left brained" and if you are injured on the right side of the brain and were more left-brained than right afterwards, you're still more "left brained."

Answer 8

Lol science mumbo jumbo

Answer 9

WATCH MYTHBUSTER. YOU WILL SEE HOW THEY TRY TO PROVE STUFF.

Answer 10

YES.