I wholeheartedly support Zin Eddine Dadach in his claim that nature was created perfectly (for atheists: whether by God or not is not material). Trying to "improve" on nature is futile and meaningless.

Further to Julio Amador's differentiation of natural and human sciences: I agree and wish to add that natural scientists aim to explain nature (phenomena), while scientists of humanities aim to understand them. Their viewpoints and methods are therefore different. A fascinating development is the attempt to merge both points of view.

Great question! We need to define science, perhaps. And it would be useful to think about the world before the trivium, to consider the liberal arts. A useful conversation could be had around problem seeking and higher education's role in developing independent thinkers and learners.

Yes, we have to define science. First of all, we have to define the differences between natural and human sciences. Their methods and their approaches to knowledge are different. In the humanities and social sciences the researcher is part of the history and the social life that he interrogates. In the natural sciences the variables that are studied can be isolated for the purpose of experimentation. That procedure is impossible in history, sociology or anthropology: the variables that determine a particular phenomenon are quite complex, multiple and cannot be isolated for experimentation.

I think science is limitless. The problem is the bad use of science. I mean that some scientists are trying to change nature and that could be dangerous because my belief tells me that nature was perfectly created by God for us and it is impossible to find a better way.

Interesting visualisation on the shape of science! http://www.scimagojr.com/shapeofscience/

I wholeheartedly support Zin Eddine Dadach in his claim that nature was created perfectly (for atheists: whether by God or not is not material). Trying to "improve" on nature is futile and meaningless.

Further to Julio Amador's differentiation of natural and human sciences: I agree and wish to add that natural scientists aim to explain nature (phenomena), while scientists of humanities aim to understand them. Their viewpoints and methods are therefore different. A fascinating development is the attempt to merge both points of view.

Our science seems to have no limits. Studies and scientific works reach other unsuspected places in space, make "miracles" between human needs and diseases and achieve unforeseen but biased determinants in the laboratory. Science, with the passage of time, will continue to give explanations to everything that needs it, and taking steps from a somewhat diffuse perspective.

Composition of soul?

Thank you all for your answers. Though I agree that nature is perfect, I do not agree that science is limitless. Even the most advanced discoveries are partial or mere hypothetical answers to complex questions that cannot yet be fully explained. For example the Higgs boson divides scientists, and we still do not have a certain answer. In many other fields we find similar problems. We have to be cautious and learn to differenciate between science and scientism: "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques".

Since 1883 Wilhelm Dilthey tried to demonstrate the substatial difference that exist between natural sciences and the humanities. He was fighting back positivism. He tried to develop a general method for the "sciences of the spirit", but he failed. The problem was that he was unconsciouslly influenced by positivism and thought that humans are able to reach objective truths in the social field. He was wrong. All knowledge depends on the epistemological horizon in which your perspective of understanding is situated. All knowledge is a historical and a social construction. It is always falible in some aspects. Knowledge can never be absolute. Science has limits.

it is question of large scale debate. Each Subject are interdisciplinary, interconnected and have infinite limit.So it will not true to say that that what is concept of finite limit in any subject. It is universal truth that limit is exit in limited area.Here we are not talking about super power and not Stefan Hawkins theory.Thanks for your nice question.

Mushtaq posed a question nobody can answer.

Generally speaking, the borderlines of science are determined by the works of top scientists . By addressing specific scientific issues in their disciplines and by tackling sensitive questions , they also raise new research questions . In point of fact, science will continue to surprise the world with its discoveries and innovative ideas. However, as you rightly observe , the limits of science are determined by certain factors that are also potentially limited . For instance, scientists' conceptions of scientific issues in devising new methods , making new discoveries, and creating new ideas are limited. Besides, technology which is quintessentially important in the evolution and modification of scientific experimentation has a limited nature. As such, new tools which enable new structures of knowledge and new ways of discovery are also limited. On this basis, we could say that scientific knowledge and achievements acquired by scientists are partial and provisional.

Science has no limit. knowing science, feeling science and doing science are limitless because physical world and spiritual world are limitless.

In theory, in principle science has no limits, however, the limit must be where what is hagano is for the benefit of humanity and can go against some form of life, bioethics must be present to prevent it from pass the limits under which the horizon of social responsibility and with life and the planet is lost

Dear Reza: I fully agree with you. I would like to underline one question. We can never present things or reality in themselves. All knowledge that we have is not a direct knowledge of things, but can only be expressed by the means of language. Scientific truths can only be transmitted through language. Language is not reality itself, but a methaphorical translation of the world by the means of symbolic thought. That is another limit of science: scientific knowledge can only be understood using language and other sign systems, like formulas: E=mc2.

There are no limits to science because there are no limits to imagination.

So we can understand ourselves we have to define the meaning of limits. Are human beings unlimited? Are all the things that human beings produce unlimited? The answer in no. We are not God! For example, there are many diseases we are not able to cure: that is a limit of science.

List of some diseases that can be terminal

• Cancer: Most cancers can either become terminal or be diagnosed as such including breast cancer and lung cancer.
• Lukemia.
• AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome)
• Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome.
• Heart Disease such as Severe Coronary Artery Disease.
• Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever.
• https://www.google.com.mx/search?q=incurable+diseases&oq=incurable+diseases&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.18388j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
• Do we know why the Neanderthals dissapeared from the face of the earth? No. Several scientists have propossed their hypothesis. None have been fully demonstrated. That is also a limit of science.

To answer the question, Whether there is any limit of science?

My experience and knowledge says there is no limit of Science. Science is such a stream of study which knows no bounds, it is exploratory in nature. Human mind or behaviour since time immemorial is exploratory in nature, and in future also mankind will explore the science, thus I will stress on the fact that Science has no limit.

I would say the answer to the limits of science, lies in the borderline between using and not using scientific methods.

In other words if we stop using scientific methods, we get out of science fields-limits.

The limit of sciences is duo to the impossiblity of generalization or due to the confusion between used theories.

The problem is more complex. The different scientific methods depend on the possibilities of knowledge, stablished historically by the epistemological horizon of each time and theory. Some hypothesis can be proven to a certain extent if the scientific data is well constructed. But we can never acquire a full knowledge of the phenomena we study. Our answers are only partial and provisional. All data has to go through interpretation and interpretation depends on the characteristcs of the interpreter. Knowledge is created in a social context and acquired individually. There are always personal (biographic) and cultural (education) aspects interfereing with interpretation.

Indubitably, there are limits to science and scientific knowledge. There are several reasons behind this.

1) Scientific theories are is constantly changing . Scientific facts today may change tomorrow based on emerging new evodence,

2) Limitations of data (facts) • For example, the data can be incomplete or fake, and

3) Limitations of human mind. Scientific issues can be beyond human understanding.

In his describing " The Idea of the University", Karl Jaspers nicely points to the limits of science stating that " the limits of science have always been the source of bitter disappointment when people expected something from science that it was not able to provide. Take the following examples: a man without faith seeking to find in science a substitute for his faith on which to build his life; a man unsatisfied by philosophy seeking an all-embracing universal truth in science; a spiritually shallow person growing aware of his own futility in the course of engaging in the endless reflections imposed by science. In every one of these cases, science begins as an object of blind idolatry and ends up as an object of hatred and contempt. Disenchantment inevitably follows upon these and similar misconceptions. One question remains: What value can science possibly have when its limitations have become so painfully clear?”

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do Science is powerful. It has generated the knowledge that allows us to call a friend halfway around the world with a cell phone, vaccinate a baby against polio, build a skyscraper, and drive a car. And science helps us answer important questions like which areas might be hit by a tsunami after an earthquake, how did the hole in the ozone layer form, how can we protect our crops from pests, and who were our evolutionary ancestors? With such breadth, the reach of science might seem to be endless, but it is not. Science has definite limits.

Science doesn't make moral judgments When is euthanasia the right thing to do? What universal rights should humans have? Should other animals have rights? Questions like these are important, but scientific research will not answer them. Science can help us learn about terminal illnesses and the history of human and animal rights — and that knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. But ultimately, individual people must make moral judgments. Science helps us describe how the world is, but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad.

Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments Science can reveal the frequency of a G-flat and how our eyes relay information about color to our brains, but science cannot tell us whether a Beethoven symphony, a Kabuki performance, or a Jackson Pollock painting is beautiful or dreadful. Individuals make those decisions for themselves based on their own aesthetic criteria.

Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge Although scientists often care deeply about how their discoveries are used, science itself doesn't indicate what should be done with scientific knowledge. Science, for example, can tell you how to recombine DNA in new ways, but it doesn't specify whether you should use that knowledge to correct a genetic disease, develop a bruise-resistant apple, or construct a new bacterium. For almost any important scientific advance, one can imagine both positive and negative ways that knowledge could be used. Again, science helps us describe how the world is, and then we have to decide how to use that knowledge.

To learn more about the different ways that humans have applied scientific knowledge, explore What has science done for you lately?

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations Do gods exist? Do supernaturalentities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.

reference/https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

regards

A lot more is still to be exposed by science. So I think it is very difficult to clearly state the limitations of science.

Belief in theory liberates thinking, belief in a theory confines it. However, there are a few points about the limitations of the scientific approach in the social sciences that I think are in order:

Proliferation of theories

Complexity of subject matter

Difficulties in observation

Difficulties in replication

Difficulties in control

Interaction of observer and subjects

Problems of Measurement

Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge .

Great answer, Dmytro :-)

The limits of science is limitless

If we want to talk in general there is no limit to science and scientific progress, but if we want to talk about ourselves as individuals, there is certainly a limit to the scientific knowledge that we can get, these limits controlled by the conditions we live and our material potential and the availability of instruments necessary to expand knowledge and the potential of the country and others , So in order to be successful we have to move within our available resources.

Check this link

https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Science-Peter-Medawar/dp/0195052129

regards

Excellent answers: Reza, Hassan and Ali. I fully agree with you. Thank you very much for your wise observations.

Please also have a look at these useful links.

Book Human Nature and the Limits of Science

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of-the-limitations-of-science

Arvind: thank you for your recommendations, they're worth of reading. Quite interesting.

Best,

Julio

Arvind: thank you for your recommendations, they're worth of reading. Quite interesting, especially the first one.

Best,

Julio

Generally speaking, man's curiosity and his thirst for discovering more knowledge about the world realities and thinking about the mysteries of eternity, of life, and of the wonderful essence of reality are instinctive. However, the limits of science have always been the cause of wide disappointment among scientists especially when their attempts to tackle a problem fail. There are a number of reasons behind such limitations . For one thing, the scientist's weak philosophical position hinders him/her from finding a totally comprehensive universal truth in science. Another thing is that a scientist has his/her own limitations because human abilities of perception and estimation of a scientific truth may be misleading and erroneous.These limitations are important barriers to scientific endeavours. On this basis, it can be stated that the limits of science are most probably related to the limitations of the scientist .

Science is generally of three kind- Knowing science , Feeling science and Doing science

Thank you for your answer Reza. I fully agree. I been following the research about Higgs boson and I find it fascinating.

Best,

Julio