Os limites da ciência (1)

Obrigatória, esta leitura recomendada pelo Cláudio Tellez. Deixo alguns excertos com comentários meus a vermelho:

«The point is that the scientific method itself has fundamental limits, and many important areas lie outside those limits. (...) When science studies the nature of cosmology, for example, it does so on the basis of the specific laws of physics that apply in the unique Universe we inhabit.
It can interrogate the nature of those laws, but not the reason for their existence, nor why they take the particular form they do. Neither can science examine the reason for the existence of the Universe. These are metaphysical issues, whose examination lies beyond the competence of science per se, because there is only one Universe, and we are unable to perform experiments in which we vary its initial conditions or the laws of physics that apply in it, nor can we compare its properties with those of any other universe. (...) This is NOT to deny that science constrains our views on metaphysics in an important way, in that it provides a context within which metaphysical viewpoints are developed; and that context does indeed limit the range of possibilities. (João: isto é para ti, pá!!!).

Taken together, this means science says nothing about meaning.
It says a lot about mechanisms. Does the universe have meaning? Consequent on this, science cannot answer the major questions about meaning and purpose of the universe and of our lives that are fundamental to every one of us, including religious issues such as the existence or non-existence of God. Neither can philosophy answer these questions with certainty; indeed there is a profound ambiguity of the universe relative to these issues. (...) The proponents of scientism like to make out there is no such uncertainty. Don’t be fooled by them. (subscrevo!) (...) Rejecting the existence of data that is inconvenient— such as the religious experiences of millions of people—is unscientific but not uncommon. One can query the meaning of data but not simply ignore its existence, as when the claim is made that there is no evidence supporting a religious viewpoint. (uma Falácia por Apelo ao Povo - inadmissível num filósofo! Se a aceitássemos, teríamos que defender que uma religião com mais crentes seria mais «credível»).

These limitations cannot be changed by future advances in science; they are fundamental to its nature. So we can expect many major advances in science— in terms of understanding the future of the universe, the course of evolutionary history (ouviste, João???), the way the brain functions (ouviste mesmo, João?????), for example—but we cannot expect it to solve ethical or moral or metaphysical issues
(claro, nunca ninguém aqui disse o contrário!!). Science forms a valuable part of human life, but it is not the basis for a whole human life. (...) Those who claim science will supplant any or all of them are indulging in a little fantasy. Be kind to them, but don’t take them seriously (concordo - estarei a tornar-me um holístico?).»