Sarah Pickard: Topic 7: Are There Limits to Science?

	Group Seven did a great job presenting different  
theories on a limit to science.   The only section 
that did not flow was the presentation on realism and 
objectivity; this, although interesting, could have 
used more contextualization. 
	I disagree with Seth’s Ray Theory, stating that 
science can never explain certain subjects, while it 
can explore other subjects infinitely.  I agree with 
the theory that our ability to accept new ideas 
limits science.  Even more, I believe that 
rationality and objectivity, fundamental to the 
scientific method, limit science.  Science proves its 
validity by breaking a large problem into parts, 
proving the smaller pieces rationally, then building 
the “machine” back together, fact by fact.  As 
Poincaré stated, science is built of facts as a house 
is built of stone.  This idea of many parts equalling 
a whole, fundamental to science, denies synergy, 
where one plus one equals more than two.  Parts 
working together produce more than the simple 
addition of their individual values.
	Consider that patients with strong support from 
loved ones are more likely to survive a disease than 
if they are alone.  Science would try to explain this 
with the release of specific neurotransmitters and 
hormones; perhaps the feeling of support and safety, 
defined as neurons recieving neurotransmitters, makes 
patients release a specific hormone which expedites 
healing.  But can it really be labeled as the release 
of a certain hormone in the brain?  Emotions cannot 
truly be broken down, analyzed, and labelled as 
specific neurotransmitters passing between neurons.  
If so, then we have begun to look at our every 
emotion, our very humanity, objectively and 
rationally; we would be "othering" ourselves.  Would 
humanity still exist if we understood ourselves as 
rational parts of cause and effect?  Moreover, is 
this even possible?  I think not: this is the limit 
to rational, western science.  In the end, the truth 
is not found by analyzing parts of the whole.