daniel mclaughlin: Topic 7: Are There Limits to Science?

	Group seven did a nice job with their 
investigation into the limits of science.  I felt 
that they explored both arguments of the topic 
equally well, leaving the class to make their own 
distinctions based on the information that they 
presented.
	I particularly liked Seth's ray analogy becuause 
it gave me a clear understanding of what the group 
intended to present over the course of the lecture.  
The image of science as bounded in some directions, 
but not in others is one that I truly agree with.  
While I do feel science will continue to develop more 
and more useful technologies, I doubt whether it will 
ever present a concrete explanation for the origin of 
the universe for example.
	The next section, which addressed contextual 
realism and interpretive contextualism was a little 
confusing.  I had trouble realizing how all of these 
arguments pertained to the topic, especially the 
examples of optical illusions.
	The case for unlimited exploration was quite 
interesting however.  In light of the unfathomable 
size of the universe, it is unbelievable to think 
that it could ever run out of things to teach humans 
through science.
	On the other hand, the argument that imagination 
and speculation are not the same as science is a 
valid point.  Just because we can think about 
scenarios like those in "Star Trek," does not mean 
that they will someday become reality.  Also, the 
argument that some "sciences" are becoming 
increasingly abstract, losing the base of empirical 
proof, is a good point.  Like the group said, at what 
point does something cease being science and become 
pure speculation?
	I feel that the argument that science is coming 
to an end is something that is easy to argue.  I mean 
the world is a pretty amazing place right now, and 
many scientific discoveries in the past have revealed 
to us the seemingly most important secrets of life, 
but who are we to feel that we have reached the peak 
of ultimate knowledge.  I think if you step back and 
sum the argument up in that statement (we are quickly 
approaching the peak of our knowledge), instead of 
the clever arguments that the proponents of the idea 
use, it is pretty hard to swallow.