Michael A. Brennan: Topic 7: Are There Limits to Science?

   I think that group 7 did a decent job in trying to 
present the issue of whether or not there are limits 
to science. The opening questions was interseting in 
that they posed the questions: Are there unlimite 
amounts of knowlege, or are there limited amounts of 
knowledge? By doing so, the group equates science 
with knowledge - which ti me is a loogical equation.
    The part about "Seth's Ray Theory" was 
interesting in that there are ares that are limited, 
that we may never explain. But there are alot areas 
which are limited in that we know all what we beleive 
there is to know. Science here has a beginning, but 
goes on infinetly in one direction, but off in 
another (and the full explanation of the sencond ray 
confused me).
     The part about science and realism, 
Interpretative contextualism, and contextual realism 
as all interesting to hear, but seemed quite 
superfluous in the attempt to answer the question: 
are there limits to science? Amid all the facts, 
pictures, charts, interpretations, and objections, I 
failed to grasp the images science they were trying 
to convey.
     I appreciated the investigation into the 
limitless versus limited exploration of scpace and 
astrology discussion. I think the contrast of the two 
was interesting in that though the limitless side 
presents the idea that the "possibilities are 
endless", there is the counterpoint that imagination 
and possibility do not lead to potential knowledge. I 
think thi is a major argueent that there are limits 
to science in that so much is based on the assumption 
that there is more to learn - but speculation is not 
a science. 
     The anthropology/archeology discussion was a 
unique branch form of science in that this social 
science would be perpetually viable since society is 
always changing - todays society becomes the past, 
and able to be investigated but future archaelogical 
anthropologists. I feel that the group could have 
done a little better job of distinguishing the "pure 
sciences" from the social sciences.
     Limits to science are quite debatable in that we 
do not know what the future holds. If you asked 
anyone 60 years ago if they could possibly conceive 
of nuclear technology, they would laugh. Who knows 
what possibilities are out here for us. It would be 
quite egotistical of us to beleive that we have 
unlocked all the fundamental truthes to science and 
knowledge...