1. We can only go with what we can observe. String theory is one example - strings are predicted mathematically, and "make sense", but are incredibly tiny (if they do exist!) and are not yet observable.
So "string theory" is a working hypothesis which may be shown to be correct one day.
2. We tend to accept authorities. Some ancient Greeks believed the planets had perfectly circular orbits, then we had to add orbits-within-orbits to make the theory work, and we accepted this for something like 2,000 years until Kepler showed that orbits are elliptical.
3. We accept plausible-but-false theories. We once thought that fire was the release of "phlogiston". Which worked OK until we did precise measurements and found that metal oxides (Mercury, for example) are slightly *heavier* than natural metals. So, if oxidation had released phlogiston, it had *negative* weight (!). The theory was abandoned once the evidence made it unsupportable.
4. At least so far, we just can't explain *everything*. B.F. Skinnner aimed to expand his "operant conditioning" theory - which worked fine to train pigeons to walk in circles - to describe the acquisition of language in humans. The task of a complete description was just too difficult, even if it was theoretically possible.
you are a stupid because science is able to do anything that is possible in the known universe.
Understanding practical and theoretical limitations can allow a scholar to carefully limit their area of expertise and research. Acknowledging limitations also allows for isolating sources of error.
because it is usefull in your life..... belive me... I've never met a true scientist who is unaware of the limitations of science. Arguablythe unawaremight be described as not true scientists. More often it is politicians who are unaware of its limitations, as well as being unaware of its capabilities. The reason for need is that otherwise the scope for calamity is endless.
The limitations of science do not inherently affect the credibility of a scientist; rather, they highlight the nature of scientific inquiry as a continuously evolving process. Scientists operate within the bounds of current knowledge and methodologies, and acknowledging these limitations can enhance their credibility by demonstrating intellectual honesty. Ultimately, the credibility of a scientist is built on their rigor, transparency, and willingness to adapt as new evidence emerges, rather than the absence of limitations in their work.
No limitations
Yes there are limitations to some science, but other then that no.
non of the branches of science discuss about love
you are a stupid because science is able to do anything that is possible in the known universe.
This is a tricky subject to answer, as you see we don't know what the limitations of science are. Science, itself, is everything, so if science cannot do something, in a way it is not real.Scientists, nowadays, believe that we may still need to discover more than 90% of the universal building blocks. Apparently, man only knows roughly 5% of the universes secrets, so you could say the limitations today is that science is incomplete itself. One day in the distant future, however, technology will be at its peak and we will hope to discover this missing 90% and make science complete, so then there will be no limitations of science.
What are some abuses,benefits and limitations of industrial science......that's a question that i can't get answers for from Googlei will really appreciate your help
nothing! once understood it is done
Nerds retards metals suckers
Its strenghts, its limitations, and its interactions with our culture.
Understanding practical and theoretical limitations can allow a scholar to carefully limit their area of expertise and research. Acknowledging limitations also allows for isolating sources of error.
He was the first to study hair in forensic science and awknowledge its limitations
because it is usefull in your life..... belive me... I've never met a true scientist who is unaware of the limitations of science. Arguablythe unawaremight be described as not true scientists. More often it is politicians who are unaware of its limitations, as well as being unaware of its capabilities. The reason for need is that otherwise the scope for calamity is endless.
because it is usefull in your life..... belive me... I've never met a true scientist who is unaware of the limitations of science. Arguablythe unawaremight be described as not true scientists. More often it is politicians who are unaware of its limitations, as well as being unaware of its capabilities. The reason for need is that otherwise the scope for calamity is endless.