David Gates: Topic 7: Are There Limits to Science?

	Although Group 7 provided a decent exploration 
into the debate concerning the possibility of limits 
to science, there were several aspects to the issue 
that did not receive enough attention.  The fact that 
only two segments of the presentation were devoted to 
the case study (Anthropology and Archaeological 
Anthropology) was rather surprising.  The general 
format of the presentation involved a definition/
introduction to the theories concerning limits to 
science, followed by the case for infinite science 
(as seen through astronomy), and the case for finite 
science (as dramatized through the bell curve theory 
of knowledge).  The group finished with an 
exploration of the case study and a conclusion of all 
the previous Speaker’s Corners.

	Three definitions of science as related to its 
continuation were introduced:  realism, contextual 
frame of science, and strong theory.  All three 
offered positions for the limits of science, but 
differed upon the location of those limits.  Although 
this information is nice to know, the definitions did 
not seem to provide a direct answer to the question, 
“Are there limits to science?”  Seth’s ray analogy, 
on the other hand, was uncomplicated and to the 
point:  it served to demonstrate that science is 
infinite in some areas, limited in other areas, and 
partly limited in still other areas.

	Next, the case for unlimited exploration was 
contrasted with the case for limited exploration.  
The former used the Big Bang theory to demonstrate 
the vastness of the universe, while the latter 
recalled a theory that knowledge over time is the 
graph of a bell curve, with the apex of knowledge 
being obtained around the year 2000.  

	The case study that used anthropology to reflect 
the differing views on the limits to science.  The 
idea of five races as opposed to an infinite number 
of races reflected the debate, as did the idea of 
changing social viewpoints on racism.  The group made 
the mistake, however, of penetrating into the social 
sciences.  The question of whether changing racial 
views (from racism to social hegemony) are 
reflections of changes in scientific theory is not 
only unrelated to the pure sciences; it is also 
irrelevant to the question of whether there are 
limits to science.  The replacement of one scientific 
theory by another does not mean that science is 
infinite.

	The scientific theories or the anthropology case 
study accomplished little in the way of providing 
direct information on the issue of whether there are 
limits to science.  I would have appreciated an 
approach to the issue as related to the pure sciences 
versus the applied sciences.  From my reading of John 
Horgan’s The End of Science, it seems that there is a 
common argument that the pure sciences are limited 
while the applied sciences are infinite.  This 
explanation seems likely, although I believe that we 
are a long way from reaching the ends of the pure 
sciences.  The search for Grand Unified Theories 
(GUTs) reflects a common dilemma on the issue; if 
such theories exist, we are a long way from reaching 
the ends of science, if not, we may already be 
nearing the end.  In conclusion, I believe the debate 
on whether there are limits to science to be of 
little importance, despite the interest that it has 
aroused.  After all, what good does it do to question 
our future ability to advance the knowledge of our 
species?