Limits of Scientific Inquiry

[McCulloch]

Science does not have all the answers. It never did, and it never will.

Question for debate: What are the limits to scientific inquiry? Specifically, what answers would be impossible to address scientifically? What, if any, valid means of inquiry are there to find these answers?

Please note, we are not talking about the current limits of our scientific knowledge, but on the theoretical limits of scientific inquiry.

[sickles]

I would define that, in my own opinion, because with greater knowledge, we can more effectively provide for the planet's well-being.

Why would we care about the planet's well-being? The answer is rather obvious. Because we live here, our well-being depends on the status of the planet.

And if the planet's well-being were best served by our species' destruction or considerable reduction? If well-being equates to goodness, which by its definition it does, then conceivably the greatest objective good could come from promoting the well-being of the planet at the expense of humanity. Of course, as humans, we are not inclined to care as much about the well-being of other species if it would seem to in any manner negatively impact the well-being of our own kind.

...which is merely to say that we, like they, have evolved with an instinct toward survival, individually and collectively. What separates humans from other species mostly is that we have intellectual and decision-making capacity which tends to confound our more primal instincts. They still exist, but can be suppressed. Whether or not this is a good thing is open to debate.

humans are not the only ones. Dolphins, Elephants, primates all have intellect and decision making capacity. However, those animals cannot predict the future, as we can. That is what makes us human. To look at some animal's footprint and know what stood in those prints is what makes us human.