Good question! With the advent of space travel, the horizons of natural science will expand and that expansion will lock step with the expansion of the universe. It would seem that there are no limitations (potentially) of natural science.

Good question! With the advent of space travel, the horizons of natural science will expand and that expansion will lock step with the expansion of the universe. It would seem that there are no limitations (potentially) of natural science.

I find your question the most interesting and very difficult to answer. I do not pretend that I have studied this problem systematically and I recognize this is a problem for logic, epistemology, social and political science. Therefore I can just give two of my opinions, which should be taken with a grain of salt.

On the logical and epistemological side of the question, I see limits that I infer, by analogy, from knowledge in computer science. A formal language is defined as a collection of finite sequences of symbols taken from a finite alphabet \Sigma. The problem is then posed of finding the most general way a formal language can be defined by specification, and this problem is reduced further to the design of automata to solve the corresponding decision problem: Does the word \alpha is an element of the formal language L?

The Church-Turing thesis (this is not a theorem, but a postulate of computer science) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis states that any sort of computation can be performed by a Turing machine. The family of languages that can be recognized by Turing machines, and therefore, defined using Turing machines, is the class of recursively enumerable languages (There is actually an extra class of partially recursive or semi-decidable languages.) It comes out that, in fact, there are formal languages outside this class and which, therefore cannot be recognized by computers. I am not claiming that our brains can be simulated by Turing machines, I actually have grounds to believe they cannot, because of Rice's Theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem . We can distinguish, for example, if an algorithm will compute a function or no. However, if we can consider our brains like some sort of automata, they might very well be limited in their abilities to recognize formal languages. I find this important for the reason that any scientific theory relies on a collection of formal or informal data structures that are used to make general statements, which are taken as "laws of nature." We do not know for sure that we have an innate potential to know everything, in particular, we still don't know if the brain has an innate potential to completely and accurately describe its own internal processes as they relate to cognition.

On the social and political side I see limitations coming from the fact that scientific research and progress is under control of a relatively small elite of grey eminences and special interests. Science has made it possible to develop the means to willfully destroy millions of human lives in the last two centuries; animal an vegetable species are now extinct; and our habitat has been polluted to a point that is probably irreversible. There is a sense of urgency to reorganize scientific efforts to address the problems that scientific and technological progress has brought to Earth in general. Unfortunately, I think, we are running out of time. There might be some strategies out there to try by the youngest generations of scientists that now will have to solve the problems their predecessors created. (e. g. S. Hartmann & J Sprenger; Judgement aggregation and the problem of tracking the truth.)

In modern days Science and Technology is so advanced that only thing which is not possible to it is to Provide Life to Dead Creatures.

Regards,

Nitish

Nitish and Constantin,

Would you say that scientific method is the limit of the natural sciences?

"Nobel Laureate Sir Peter Medawar pointed out this long ago in his excellent book 'Advice to a Young Scientist', which ought to be compulsory reading for all scientists:

"There is no quicker way for a scientist to bring discredit upon his profession than roundly to declare - particularly when no declaration of any kind is called for - that science knows, or soon will know, the answers to all questions worth asking, and that questions which do not admit a scientific answer are in some way non-questions or "pseudo-questions" that only simpletons ask and only the gullible profess to be able to answer."

Medawar goes on to say: "The existence of a limit to science is, however, made clear by its inability to answer childlike elementary questions having to do with first and last things - questions such as: 'How did everything begin?' 'What are we all here for?' 'What is the point of living?'"

He adds that we must turn to imaginative literature and religion for the answers to such questions.

Francis Collins, former Head of the Human Genome Project, is equally clear on the limitations of science: "Science is powerless to answer questions such as 'Why did the universe come into being?' 'What is the meaning of human existence?' 'What happens after we die?'

Obviously Medawar and Collins are passionate scientists. So there is clearly no inconsistency involved in being a committed scientist at the highest level, while simultaneously recognizing that science cannot answer every kind of question, including some of the deepest questions that human beings can ask.

For instance, there is widespread acknowledgment that it is very difficult to get a base for morality in science. Albert Einstein saw this clearly. In a discussion on science and religion in Berlin 1930, he said that our human sense of beauty and our religious instinct are "tributary forms in helping the reasoning faculty towards its highest achievements. You are right in speaking of the moral foundations of science, but you cannot turn round and speak of the scientific foundations of morality." Einstein proceeded to point out that science cannot form a base for morality: "every attempt to reduce ethics to scientific formulae must fail".

Richard Feynman, also a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, shared Einstein's view: "Even the greatest forces and abilities don't seem to carry any clear instructions on how to use them. As an example, the great accumulation of understanding as to how the physical world behaves only convinces one that this behaviour has a kind of meaninglessness about it. The sciences do not directly teach good or bad." Elsewhere he states that "ethical values lie outside the scientific realm".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

God and Stephen Hawking, John C. Lennox, 2011.

The limitation is that not all that is possible should be implemented except on specific neccessity, especially on natural Science, information of scientific discoveries should be limited within groups of proffesionals rather than widely informed by media causing social panic. I believe that nothing on Earth is new after the Holy Bible, Torah or Quran. We indirectly permit sensationalism of media when some unethical nature scientist participate in public media interview for personal promotion about diseases & treatments still doutbtful even among experts.

Limitations of natural sciences !!!! No limitations at first glance, as nobody can be prevented from doing natural science. Schools and Universities are teaching science at primary, secondary, graduate and doctoral levels and they can teach as much as they want or as much as they can. They can generate knowledge in science, for the purpose of academic or for solving a problem. And they will start generating more knowledge when they find new problems and issues facing the man. So no limitations !!!!.

However, limitations come when the society does not accepts it; like broilers chicken in previous times which was considered unnatural and hence the conservative people did not like to use a meal. However, today 100% of the people in the urban, rural and even remote mountains in the northern Pakistan are using broilers and purchase them at much higher rates as local production is missing. Still other technologies like artificial insemination in cattle are not getting popularity in such regions and farmers in Dir District asked me to get them rid of this curse and help them find breeding bulls for natural mating of their cows. However, it is against the government policy and the practice will continues; and due to non-cooperation of the farmers the program is not getting successful. Some of the people like to introduce new technologies into their production system and life styles; however, they fail to do so because of socio-economic constraints.

Now let us consider it in another perspective. We, the human beings and the whole universe has been created by God the All Mighty Allah. Man is the Central Element of the Universe and Quran says that the remaining inverse has been created for serving man. It means that the whole Universe has been ordered to serve man. And this order has been placed in them through physical and biological laws. Quran call these orders as Kun Fayakun. Allah says be and the thing becomes done. These laws has kept the Universe intact and running in a stable state. Any deviation from this balance will result in an instantaneous disaster. In the biological systems when I look at my self, I become astonished. How I am alive at this moment. My heart is beating; my body systems are running coordinated by my hypoghalamus. Billions of cells of my body are working, in coordination with each others and various centers. I do not know exactly, what is happening inside my body at molecular levels and how many reactions are occurring within a minute. I have no control over all these happenings. Are these things happening without monitoring and control of a single Supreme Designer/Creator?

Science is helping us in understanding some of the phenomenon occurring within the biological and the physical systems. Scientists discover only the things required for the welfare of the people and that is the limitation.

Dear Muhammad Subhan Qureshi thanks for your answer, as you mention "I have no control over all these happenings. Are these things happening without monitoring and control of a single Supreme Designer/Creator? "

Can you kindly guide and shed some light that what is the scientific way(s) to explore about monitoring and controlling system(s) by single supreme designer/creator and then the designer/creator, as you claim then must have some sketch in mind plz ?

Thanks