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

Abstract as it may be, the question of limits in 
science was eloquently preposed by group six.  The 
question of limits in science, and the ensuing 
response creates a dichotomy of opinion.  In one 
camp, there are those who believe that science is 
limitless, that all of nature can be scientifically 
quantified, or that limits do exist in science, and 
there exist aspects of nature which science cannot 
explain.  
	The group, i thought did a good job presenting 
the two sides of the argument.  I thought the opening 
analogy, that of the idea of limits as a ray segment 
was extremely helpful in visualizing the accompanying 
arguments.  I thought the first two case studies, 
dealing with the Big Bang, and the theory of quantum 
mechanics were helpful in giving examples which could 
be used to support both opinions.  However, I was 
disappointed in the remainder of the presentation, as 
the focus on Archeological Anthropology, and various 
forms of this, seemed to be a bit dry, and drift from 
teh focal point of the presentation.  
	Personally, I think that limits must exist in 
science.  Without limits, there is mystery in nature, 
and therefore no need for a supernatural god.  It 
seems as if the death of limits would occurr in the 
success of the Big-Bang theory or the unified theory, 
but each have fallen short of explaining the absolute 
beginning of the universe, or an absolute answer to 
all natural phenemenon, which the proposed unified 
theory ambitiously tries to accomplish.  Furthermore, 
I am not satisfied with the scientific explanations 
for the existence of human emotions, like love, and 
of the existence of the soul, or even the question of 
the afterlife.  While a scientists may argue that 
this lies outside the realm of science, than we must 
acknowledge that this "realm" is a limit unto science 
itself, that science is not really all-encompassing.