I've often heard that science is capable of proving anything. Is this really true? Does science have no limits to it's deductive abilities? Sadly, there are some limits to what science and the scientific method can do. Let's take a look at a few of them.
Mathematics and Logic
Science can't prove mathematics or logic. These are presumptions to the scientific method. Science presumes them to be true and has not proven them to be true.
Don't agree? Try to prove these. Take away logic and mathematics and try to prove them. Try to prove logic to be true without using logic.
The Metaphysical
Science can't prove the metaphysical. One of the more talked about metaphysical elements is the supernatural. Science deals with nature. The supernatural is outside of nature and therefore outside the abilities of science to take a look at.
The Scientific Method
Science can't prove the scientific method itself. It presumes it. How can something use it's own process to prove it's own process? It can't. To even try is circular reasoning.
Why does any of this matter?
This is a question worth asking and the answer is simple. If we are to have a good understanding of what's going on we need to know the limitations of something. To wrap our minds around something we need to know some of the ins and outs. To hear something scientific and believe it we need to know what it's based on.
Good thoughts
Matt - I can't agree more with what you've written. I've been awed by science since I was a little kid (and maybe one day I'll go back and get that physics degree I always thought about). But we have to understand the limits of what science can and cannot do. Science is great at finding facts and helping us understand the physical universe. But 'facts' are not the same as 'truth' and science cannot find 'truth'. Many people either don't understand that or don't want to.
Science is in reference to beliefs
Don't forget that science is in reference to beliefs. For example, the big bang model is based on the belief that there aren't and have never been any special places (over a given area) in the universe.
For the big bang model this belief defiles the boundary points (or lack thereof).
This is something we can't test and can't prove. Yet, it's just taken as a given. It's a belief that directly shapes the output of our science and what is taught to people.
Notice this is not a fact. But, it does have the title Cosmological Principle. Seems factual, doesn't it? I don't mean to debate it. I think it's just good to know the context of such things.
You started with a strawman
Matt, With all due respect, you start with a strawman of your own design and then tee it up and take aim. You state the non-sequitur "I've often heard that science is capable of proving anything" and then move forward to discredit it without any basis other than desire to prove it wrong. But no one who understands the scientific method would ever state what you stated so it is indeed a strawman.
The scientific method is about using logical processes to determine what is more likely to be true and what it less likely to be true, not about determining absolute truth (that is for philosophy, but I digress. :-)
It used to be heresy to say that the Earth was not the center of the universe, but science using logic and mathematics has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not. The scientific method is just like programming which is something you claim expertise in. You start with what you know and build from there always adding to your knowledge based upon what you've learned thus far.
And then you state that without logic and mathematics you can't prove anything; that's like saying without light you can't see anything so that proves the world around oneself does not exist!
Here's a challenge for you? If you so firmly believe that logic and mathematics are unnecessary or invalid, then I call upon to you prove your faith in that premise. Find the tallest building you can find wherever it is you live and jump off of it. I mean logic and math would tell you that would be the height of stupidity, no pun intended, but you've already disavowed logic and math, right?
A few thoughts
Mike, I think you may have gotten my intent a little wrong. When it comes to logic and math my point is not to say that we shouldn't use them or that they are bad to use. I use them all the time happily. It's just knowing that they are a presumption that matters. I regularly talk to people that think that science can prove anything. Not that it has but that it's capable of proving anything. These aren't science junkies. They are your everyday average person who took science classes in grade school. I don't debate that people who know science can see the presumptions and know the limitations of the scientific method. But, there are a lot of average people that don't. And yet, they still make science assumptions based on false knowledge.
I'm not trying to disavow logic and math. Just trying to put the scientific method in it's proper place and realize where logic and math enter into it's use.
Is the earth the center of the universe. The honest answer is that we don't know. It's an assumption to say that it is or isn't. We aren't capable of viewing the entire universe. There are even a number of different theories on the universe itself and the nature of it's makeup. One theory even says that if you went in one direction long enough (though it's impossible to do) that you would loop around to the other side of the universe. Is there a center to the universe and what's at the center if it exists is something we don't know. Yeah, I can be a skeptic but we often make claims as truth (not in the philosophical sense) that are really beyond us. And, I don't like that because it's a bit arrogant in our abilities and lacks in humility to what we know and can see.
These errors on our part, especially with the everyday person, leads them down philosophical tracks in their search for truth they might not likely go down if they had an honest picture of what we know, what we don't, what we are capable of knowing, and how our worldviews affect the assumptions and conclusion. I know because I've seen it.
Does that make more sense?
John Nash proved there are problems that can not be solved
His work on countable infinities lead him to the theorem that proves not all problems have solutions.
And whilst some readers may say oh well that is just math. I assure it is not only math. Problems are problems they are all mathematical even if it is a choice between dating Julie and Jane.