Chris Ott: Topic 7: Are There Limits to Science?

	The presentation submitted by the final gfroup 
provided an interesting philosophical endnote to the 
musings of the class. The central question framed by 
the groups discussion was, "How far can we go in the 
realm of science." They did an admirable job of 
showing the different opinions of the limits of 
science within the time constraints. 
	The idea of limits is inexorably linked to all of 
the other presentations that we have experienced in 
the class. Are science and religion at odds? Should 
science be applied to wartime applications? It was, 
no doubt, very difficult for them to define 
parameters for their discussion because of the myriad 
of possibilities that it presented.So choices had to 
be made as to the content of their presentation. 
Still, during and after the presentation I had a 
sense that I was being cheated. It seemed that the 
disciplines that they covered were a insufficient to 
properly illuminate the boundaries of science. It was 
really quite engaging to see the debates that 
represent the same debate in these two disciplines 
but I craved a little more information. Their 
presentation would have been better served if they 
had supplied at least one more example of the 
academic debate concerning the limits of science.
	That said I would like to examine their vision of 
anthropology in greater detail. I think that 
Anthropology is a great example in which to explore 
the limits of science. In this presentation they 
attempted to frame the debate on limits by showing 
the problems that Anthropology has encountered in its 
attempts to quantify and classify it's store of 
knowledge. For the most part, it made Anthropology to 
seem especially susceptible to the limits of science. 
The treatment of anthropology, as a discipline, by 
this class has been brutal from the first days of 
class. Anthropology is the stock example whenever one 
wants to illustrate the futility of pure science. 
	Due to the breadth of the debates within the 
anthropological community it is seen as the exemplar 
of science ruined by humanity.At times, when the 
subject has come up in discussions, I have seen 
people get angry and dismissive of the science 
itself. I have to ask myself why it is seen in such a 
negative light. Why would it inspire such strong 
emotions? The truth is that Anthropology is a 
chimera. It is neither wholely hard science nor 
social science. It is a jumble. The definition that 
the group attribute to Anthropology clearly shows 
this confusion: " The purpose of Anthropology is to 
study the nature of humankind." 
	To truly study humankind one must employ 
mathematicians, biologists, psychologists, 
sociologists, primatologists, and scores more of 
specialists. All of these disciplines are represented  
in Anthropology and still the nature of humankind 
eludes quantification. But Anthropologists do not see 
this as a failure. In truth, no anthropologist would 
want to see the human being reduced to an empirical 
formula. If the questions were all answered then 
there would be no further reward for curiosity. I do 
not think that any scientist really conceives of an 
end to science. The world is a great jewel of 
inestimable beauty that extends out to the horizons 
of imagination. The scientist spends his or her 
entire life describing one beautiful facet. It is an 
ascetic life to be sure but is one full of promise. 
If you ever finish polishing your facet there are 
boundless more in need of work.