What are two limitations of science?

Answer 1

Science itself is a limitation. It is inherently limiting because it must yield observable, testable proof. This is not to say that science is useless; it has done many beneficial things for society and humanity the world over, but it is limiting.

For example, "hard" science does not acknowledge anything that cannot be directly observed. However, there are many instances in which people experience "abnormal" phenomena which is ignored, even denounced by the scientific field. Whether these things are true or not, science cannot test for these things within the limitations of its framework, so it just ignores it.

One current example of this is the study of consciousness. There are many articles (esp. Pinker's work) which seek to answer the question of "what makes reality, real?" Studies are pointing to the notion that reality is a subjective, NOT objective, phenomena. What this means is that your reality is shaped by what you believe, what you've experienced, and what you know to be true. If you believe yourself to be dumb and lazy, chances are you will create that reality in your life and manifest the circumstances which perpetuate what you believe about yourself. If you believe you are destined to live a life free of limitations and boundaries set against you, then you will see the opportunities open up to you and make that your reality. The same principle is true with science. It is a self-limiting practice to only test for what we already know to be true, because we stifle the opportunity for growth by focusing on what's already there.

Science does have its limitations, but only when kept within the boundaries of corruption, academia, and the body politic of which it is born out of. Any scientist will probably laugh in your face if you say it's a scientific act to study your belief system and change your reality by deconstructing what you believe. But like with everything else, test it out yourself. Experience can be a scientific study, but not in the traditional sense.

Science itself aims directly for truth. It's people that corrupt it.

Answer 2

• Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?" And of course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one ounce of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the element gold, but if what you need is something to build a skyscraper with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no way to scientifically determine value.
• Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of science. This is why expert scientific witnesses can never help us solve the dispute over abortion: all a scientist can tell you is what is going on as a fetus develops; the question of whether it is right or wrong to terminate those events is determined by cultural and social rules--in other words, morality. The science can't help here.
• Finally, science can't help us with questions about the supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach.

Answer 3

Science concerns itself mainly with objects and their behaviour.

But the beauty of a rainbow, or of a poem, are not subjects that science is equipped to deal with.

However it may tell you the age of a bone carving, or the distance to a star.

It can consider abstract thought however - such as the concept of infinity, and other esoteric concepts.

Answer 4

Science is limited because we can't just stop a tsunami from occurring