Limitations of Science

Credit: Google Images

Science explains how things work, but not why they work the way they do.

I do not adhere to any specific religion, but I do vaguely believe there is a higher power that determined at least the rudimentary building blocks of the universe, from which we deduced what we could do with them. All science does is observe the property of things and manipulate those properties to the advantage of humanity, but it still fails to explain why those properties are the way they are.

Of course you could argue that a plane flies because of lift created by pressure difference, itself the result of difference in air speed above and below the wings, itself the result of conservation of mass etc etc. This all creates the illusion of causality, therefore giving the impression that science explains why things fly. In reality, science just helps map the chain of events leading up to the observable fact that birds/planes can fly.

Progress in science usually means one of - or a combination of - these 3 things:

1) Discovery of a new precedence in a chain of events, thus allowing us to explain further how things work in a smaller and smaller scale

2) Discovery of a new use of a property i.e. a new consequence of the chain of events, allowing us to exploit more of the same stuff
3) Discovery of enough statistical (empirical) evidence supported by scientific theories, therefore turning a theory into a law

All three are highly intertwined, the keyword being 'discovery'.

In short, science discovers, imitates and combines. Science doesn't invent, and it surely doesn't explain the raison d'etre of things.