The limits of science: Richard Dawkins

Evolutionary biologist

By Richard Dawkins Published 02 May 2012

Richard Dawkins. Photo: Getty Images

There are certainly many things that science has not yet explained, which is one reason a scientific career is so worthwhile. But is there anything that science can never explain? The origin of the laws of physics, perhaps? Subjective consciousness? There are some physicists who think physics will come to an end and reach a quietus, a nirvana. That is a very exciting prospect, but it is also possible that physics will become a never-ending quest, each answered question opening the door on a new question. We don’t know which of these two equally exciting possibilities will transpire. But what we do know is that, if there is a question about the universe that science can never answer, no other discipline will. Science is our best hope for answering the deep questions of existence, but we must be alive to the possibility that the science of the future will be so different from the science of the present as to be scarcely recognisable under the same title. Is there anything science should not try to explain? No.

Previous: Carolyn Porco

Back to list

Tags: Science

View the discussion thread.

5 comments

Fri, 2012-05-18 21:07 — John Deakins (not verified)

Thank goodness for Carolyn Porco! Her succinct (and accurate) analysis nevertheless promotes (inevitably for me) a further question. What drives the opposing parties to persist in their promotion of the polarity upon which the "Science versus Religion" controversy depends? Are these perhaps simply different aspects of a similar hubris?

Thu, 2012-05-17 04:33 — Bruce Caithness

Of course what differentiates science from religion is that scientific theories remain permanently conjectural. Knowledge is built by putting explanations to the test. Karl Popper asked "How do we know?" His answer was "We don't" - all our positions are guesses, albeit severely tested. It does science a disservice when we claim some sort of dogmatic certainty. Leave that to religion.

There is no one ordered process that we call "science" - rather science implies an attitude of continual testing and openness. My local car mechanic is an excellent scientist when he, by a process of trial and error, diagnoses a worrying engine noise. I worry when "science" is reified like the domain of high priests. Even "scientists" often make unscientific statements.

Joe Barnhart said "Imagination and speculation are essential ingredients of the thinking process. Intuitions become a part of every variety of genuine thinking, including science, because they are accepted as trials rather than dogmas."

Mon, 2012-05-14 07:54 — Indu Pendent

"Is there anything science should not try to explain? No."

How to do you know?

Mon, 2012-05-14 10:14 — Monday's Matin (not verified)

I think the question "how do you know?" seems a bit silly. While his point was bluntly put, it remains specifically his point, his opinion. Though science attempts to approach objectivity, this article doesn't even try. The better question was probably "why not?"