Is science overrated?

[Swami]

I am often told that science is the greatest tool for knowledge. Then I notice that scientists admit not having a consensus when it comes to the origin of the Universe, origin of life, origin of consciousness, and if there is life after death.

Why can't scientists answer these questions?

Please feel free to provide any book references that provide clarity on these topics. Thank you. Cheers

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by Razorsedge]

The origin of the universe is a series of transformations between states of matter, like nuclear reactions ongoing in stars.
The origin of life given well in wikipedia on evolution.
The origin of consciousness is the sophistication of the knee-jerk reaction, into more sophisticated responses.
There is no life after death.

Really, these questions have been answered for many years now.

[DeMotts]

I am often told that science is the greatest tool for knowledge. Then I notice that scientists admit not having a consensus when it comes to the origin of the Universe, origin of life, origin of consciousness, and if there is life after death.

Why can't scientists answer these questions?

Please feel free to provide any book references that provide clarity on these topics. Thank you. Cheers

Your criticism is that science hasn't answered everything, as you type on a device made of minerals pulled from the earth, powered by electricity generated in a nuclear furnace or hydroelectric dam, connected to a worldwide network allowing you to speak with virtually anyone instantly and access the sum total knowledge of humankind with the press of a button.

What is still unknown is an ever receding horizon. I think science is doing fine. I think it's probable that science will even answer a couple of your questions at some point. If you have a better means for discovering how the universe works I'd like to hear it.

[Divine Insight]

I am often told that science is the greatest tool for knowledge. Then I notice that scientists admit not having a consensus when it comes to the origin of the Universe, origin of life, origin of consciousness, and if there is life after death.

Why can't scientists answer these questions?

Please feel free to provide any book references that provide clarity on these topics. Thank you. Cheers

I think the point to take away is that science is the "Greatest Tool for Knowledge" that we currently have.

So asking why science may not be able to answer certain questions is irrelevant to that point.

The real question is this: "Is there any other tool for knowledge that can or has done better?"

And the answer to that question is clearly, "No."

So there you have it.

Until you can point to a better tool for knowledge than science, then science retains the position of being the "Greatest Tool for Knowledge". It doesn't need to be able to answer every question you can imagine asking in order to retain that position.

And by the way, since you posted this in "Science and Religion" I can assure you that absolutely no religion has been a better tool for knowledge. So there are no religions that can even come close to competing with science as a "Tool for Knowledge".

[Neatras]

If someone asks you what the boiling point of tungsten is, there is no form of verification you would ever use in a million years aside from the scientific method. Or at least, no method that doesn't either rely on the principle of science (observation and information storage), or is equivalent to a guess (intuition, which does borrow from observational verification methods to a lesser degree than the scientific method calls for).

You'll default to the scientific method where it matters, and then dismiss it when convenient. So why should we take you seriously? You won't accept anything less than the scientific standard when it actually matters.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 1 by Razorsedge]

I am often told that science is the greatest tool for knowledge. Then I notice that scientists admit not having a consensus when it comes to the origin of the Universe, origin of life, origin of consciousness, and if there is life after death.
Why can't scientists answer these questions?

Jets are far better flying machines than biplanes. Why didn't we just build jets from the beginning?

It's actually the scientific method that is used to gain knowledge and help us distinguish between what is real and what is just imaginary. There are many tools used in the process and we are able to answer more questions as we develop better and better tools. The hardest questions take the longest to answer. Unfortunately, impatient humans want all the answers in their own lifetime.

[Tcg]

I am often told that science is the greatest tool for knowledge. Then I notice that scientists admit not having a consensus when it comes to the origin of the Universe, origin of life, origin of consciousness, and if there is life after death.

Others have already addressed many of the issues brought up in your OP. The only question I am left to wonder about is how could science be overrated when scientists have admitted its limits?

Who is doing this overrating given that it is obviously not scientists?

[Bust Nak]

I am often told that science is the greatest tool for knowledge. Then I notice that scientists admit not having a consensus when it comes to the origin of the Universe, origin of life, origin of consciousness, and if there is life after death.

Why can't scientists answer these questions?

In simplest terms, scientists does not have the answer to these questions because the answers are currently beyond the greatest tool for knowledge. Are you suggesting that science does not deserve to be called "the greatest tool for knowledge" until it can answer those questions? Why would one rate science any lower for not having answers to these questions, when it has answers to so much more?

[Swami]

The origin of life given well in wikipedia on evolution.

Evolution theory does not deal with "origins":
"The theory of evolution, both currently and as first conceived by Darwin and Wallace, neither provides, nor requires, an explanation for the origin of life. As Gould (1987) noted over two decades ago, “Evolution, in fact, is not the study of origins at all.…Evolution studies the pathways and mechanisms of organic change following the origin of life.� The theory of evolution is a naturalistic, and well-supported, explanation for how life diversified after it originated by any (currently unknown) means, as is clearly described in modern biology texts (Campbell et al. 2008; Sadava et al. 2008; Futuyama 1998"
Read more https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 010-0225-1

also
"Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes."
Read more https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... faq.php#a1

The origin of the universe is a series of transformations between states of matter, like nuclear reactions ongoing in stars.

Best explanation is Big Bang theory. Big Bang theory does not explain the beginning of everything. Before big bang happened, time, space, and the laws of physics did not exist.

The origin of consciousness is the sophistication of the knee-jerk reaction, into more sophisticated responses.

But all the smart guys admit they can't explain why and how it exist.

There is no life after death.

No scientist knows this for sure. Data on a computer is not loss because the computer dies. The data still exist in virtual space on memory and can be uploaded to new computers.

[Swami]

I am often told that science is the greatest tool for knowledge. Then I notice that scientists admit not having a consensus when it comes to the origin of the Universe, origin of life, origin of consciousness, and if there is life after death.

Why can't scientists answer these questions?

Please feel free to provide any book references that provide clarity on these topics. Thank you. Cheers

I think the point to take away is that science is the "Greatest Tool for Knowledge" that we currently have.

So asking why science may not be able to answer certain questions is irrelevant to that point.

The real question is this: "Is there any other tool for knowledge that can or has done better?"

And the answer to that question is clearly, "No."

So there you have it.

Until you can point to a better tool for knowledge than science, then science retains the position of being the "Greatest Tool for Knowledge". It doesn't need to be able to answer every question you can imagine asking in order to retain that position.

And by the way, since you posted this in "Science and Religion" I can assure you that absolutely no religion has been a better tool for knowledge. So there are no religions that can even come close to competing with science as a "Tool for Knowledge".

Should I stick with science if it can not answer the questions I posed? Why do you assume that all religious beliefs are false?