Terence Bradshaw: Topic 7: Are There Limits to Science?

	The debate over whether or not there are limits 
to science is one to which I never gave much 
attention before last Tuesday’s presentation by Group 
Seven.  Walking out of the classroom, however, it was 
all I could think about.  The highly philosophical 
and intellectual nature of this debate means that it 
is not often addressed in movies, novels, or 
television shows.  Consequently, Group Seven could 
not employ the video clips and other references to 
popular culture that preceding groups used to bring 
their presentations down to a level with which 
students could identify.  Indeed, reading some of my 
classmates’ responses, the absence of bells and 
whistles in this presentation seems to be one of 
their most common criticisms.  Those who made such 
criticisms probably failed to consider the 
possibility that this topic was more difficult than 
some of the others, however.  Personally, I was 
impressed by Group Seven’s ability to fully explore a 
topic that does not lend itself well to a high-tech 
multimedia presentation.
	The contrast between the case for unlimited 
exploration and the one for limited exploration 
really brought the debate to a comprehensible level 
for me.  I found Harwit’s argument that humans are 
currently at the peak of the knowledge curve both 
disturbing and short-sighted.  While science may 
never bring the level of technology seen on Star 
Trek, Harwit suggests that humans will know nearly 
everything there is to know within the next two 
centuries.  The fact that every scientific discovery 
gives birth to new questions and new possibilities 
for future exploration, however, means that 
scientists will continue to be busy for far more than 
two centuries.  The pace of scientific discovery in 
the twentieth century has been much faster than in 
preceding ones, and that no doubt contributed to 
Harwit’s conclusion.  This conclusion seems, though, 
to be founded on an egocentric view of twentieth-
century science.  Like scientists today, future ones 
are likely to make astounding improvements in the 
technology of experimentation that will bring 
inconceivable amounts of new knowledge within reach.
	After my criticism of Harwit’s grim predictions 
about the limits of science, I suppose it is somewhat 
ironic that I am about to conclude my remarks with a 
grim suggestion of my own.  The limit of scientific 
discovery may not be that there is only a finite 
quantity of knowledge to be attained.  Instead, it 
might be the degree to which scientific discovery is 
compatible with nature.  We already know about the 
capacity of nuclear weapons to destroy Earth and its 
inhabitants many times over, but other, seemingly 
benign inventions threaten the survival of the human 
race as well.  Many environmentalists are already 
sounding alarms about the depletion of the ozone 
layer in the Earth’s atmosphere due to pollution.  
Consider the expanded threat of pollution when the 
billions of people in China and the rest of the less 
developed world begin to drive cars, use 
refrigerators and air condition their homes and 
offices.