Quote:
Quote by: nilan3000  The scientific model as you say is not buit for all types of enquiries, agreed. But once you reach that point you can distinguish certain questions to be subjective and certain to be objective.
Science cannot answer your questions like whether Hamlet or Hard Times is better because it is a subjective one, because there is no one answer. You may like Hamlet and I may like Hard Times or vice versa (personally I love both).
Objective matters on the other hand (the existence of god for example) has only one answer (either god exists or god doesnt exist, unless he likes to blink in and out of reality, which is highly unlikely). For enquiries requiring an objective answer, I dont see any reason as to why a scientific model would be flawed.
Remember, if we have no evidence to research on a particular issue it is our shortcoming that we were unable to obtain enough proof, it is not science's fault. If science has failed to answer any objective question, it is because we have failed to assimilate enough data on it, the science behind it is still valid. |
Why do you say it is humanities fault for not obtaining enough data to answer an objective question. Is it possible that there is an objective question that can't be answered due to a limitation of science. Does a god exist is an objective question, but science can't possibly answer that. Science deals with how matter interacts, the god I think of(Christian God) isn't matter. This idea that god isn't the world we live in is what allowed science to flourish.