The limits of scientific knowledge in explaining physical reality

Scientific Knowledge

There lies question on whether scientific knowledge is able to answer all the questions that relate to physical reality. For many years, people have wondered what the earth is composed of, leaving them wondering if the nature's secrets will one day be revealed (Grant 64). However, it is notable that since Galileo discovered the moon in 1608, there has been a remarkable move by his fellow scientists.

A lot of studies in science including the origin of the solar system, sonata of the stars, how matter changes to energy, and detailed works of an atom, among others has not fully exposed the science knowledge. However, the human culture seems to change with science. Worldview patterns prove that complex systems studies by working from their smallest constituents meaning from bottom up. These paradigms also confirm that the laws of nature pounce from deep symmetry writs in to the basics of time, space, and matter. In other words, physical reality bases on the relationship between symmetry and reductionism.

Challenges on the mystery of creation

The mystery of creation is a major question that no one seems to answer. The human origin is a mystery to every past creature. Most people have used the faiths and beliefs of the community to justify creation. The power used here is superpower that is not only questionable, but exists beyond the limits of time, space, and matter. God is supernatural, and cannot be limited to the physical laws. That is why human has assumed a subsistence of a parallel reality that exists outside but directly interacting with the human race.

Scientists through supernatural entities cannot define the mechanism of the natural world. Before science, the Ancient Greece' natural philosophers tried to make sense on the same issue of creation. Before Socrates, the philosophers believed there was a single explanation to all this. The first western philosopher according to Aristotle was Thales who believed water was the original substance. There is a belief that water can change itself, and cycle all the way through earth and sky, and that nature is active vivacious in the rhythm of creation and destruction. The problem comes in constructing an argument explaining an absolute. The question of where the primal or the water came from is still unanswered.

Aristotle is a philosopher who studied the earthly realm that consisted of water, air, and fire, under the lunar sphere, and heavens, planets and the stars. His space included the giant system of spheres from inner planetary sphere, to the outer sphere of the set stars where movement imparted from the outside in. However, Aristotle believed in the supernatural or the absolute power that survives beyond the space of causation.

With the rebirth, nature is described by scientists in a more mathematical and quantitative method. Galileo is among the philosophers who believed the possibility of constructing empirical laws, which described a specific way of unfolding the physical occurrence whether on earth or heaven. Newton publishes on the law of motion saying matter behaves in conventional ways due to the laws of gravitation and motion. Napoleon made a remark on the absence of God but Laplace did not see the need for that hypothesis. Through the construction of the nebula, he had confidence in the origin of the solar system, and he used Newton's physics to include the momentum. However, Laplace did not have the nebula, neither its rotation, although he never mentioned it to napoleon.

By the twentieth century, the mystery of creativity had changed with Einstein's relativity showed space-time is plastic (Sproul 98). The quantum procedures have also proved that there are basic limitations when observers try to obtain information about the material earth. Cosmology being the science involving the origin of the universe depends on a series of untested theories (Grant 64). There are some physical laws like preservation of energy-momentum and charge, or lessening of special degrees of autonomy when using super space models in order to get reasonable solutions past the current known limit of validity. This means it is the theoretical framework that is used, and it depends on the general theories on quantum mechanics and reality beyond the scales of where these theories are known to work (Smollin 2).

This problem is unresolved despite of the new technologies in application. Science may be progressing radically as it strives to test different theories, but this does not mean its business as usual. Science requires scaffolding or a platform from which to operate. Otherwise, it is not able to explain creativity because it cannot explain itself. It is not conclusive that the sequence landscape contains all the possible cosmos including the earth. The question on where the multiverse originated from will always be there, and how quantum integral path arose. There have been arguments on weak anthrop arguments on constraining the universe that we live in. First is by acknowledging an existence of physical viewers. A scientific model of creation will formulate one day, but the question of explaining its own structure will remain.

Human centric science

This is an argument based on the humankind and has least been considered regarding final questions. The origin of the universe is defined differently from timeless realm, and quantum mechanically jumping into this conventional time evolving theory of the universe' origin, still is dependent on creation of models, which depend on several hypothesis. There is no way a theory can be stimulated without them. In every construction, there is a need for materials and construction rules. Otherwise, beyond that, there is no realism. In addition, the information of physical reality depends on the measuring devices applied. The universe is forever changing, from the sun-centered to the earth, and is basically tool-driven according to Dyson (11) who believes that as the tools evolve, so does our vision. This is seen as true in all planets regardless the size. However, this confirms only through tests, and the question on what lies beyond the measurement ability remains.

The world physically describes as evolving, and self-correcting story. Nevertheless, this is not a conclusive theory since physics has no end in a reductionist theory caused by complexity in the interactions among elementary particles. It is difficult to attain a totality in knowledge, and this is a predicament in the human race that only dreams the infinite but are not able to embrace it. Any theory looking for final answer is only trying to embrace the impossible. The western philosophers have tried hard to get the answers in vain. They should embrace the idea of not knowing, where questions have no answers.

Science is believed to be the supreme figure of all knowledge. This is because it bases on theories and facts, and its results are acquired through approved methods. In addition, it looks impartial making it seem reliable and truthful. Nevertheless, they are people who feel that science is misunderstood. Therefore, the question of other types of knowledge similar to science exists. History and biology are the main areas where science knowledge is tested. These are compared in different ways including reasoning, perception, language, and emotion in order to conclude on science knowledge being highest form of knowledge (Grant 62). Biology is an area that has proved science knowledge because the bigger portion of our knowledge bases on investigations and observations of the environment around us. A good example is the knowledge that living things have organs. This proves through dissecting different organisms and identifying the different organs.

This brings about the issue of generalization through reasoning. This is true because it shows at any moment in time. The biologists are able to do experiments and confirm why the leaves on an oak tree grow bigger next to the stem. They will use a random field study to confirm their allegations. However, despite the different methods of experimenting, they cannot confirm the best. Again, weakness reflects when the scientist cannot collect enough evidence. Personal bias is another drawback in the result that affects the result. The timing of the experiment will also determine the results because in spring, the results might be different from summer's results.

In history, a lot teaches on ancient wars, and almost all the people who experienced have died. However, official documents like the television, reading materials, and biographies among others hold the records of these events. Because no record is help to show the contrary, it is hard to refute that these events took place. The historian is hence disadvantaged because he cannot go back to time for another research. This means they can only work on the material they have. Language is another hindrance for the historians because the readers interpret the documentaries differently. The issue of political and cultural views may also affect the historian's results. The documents can also be edited or falsified making history less supreme. As much as science knowledge maybe supreme, it is important to note that there are some fields of science where results maybe differ in reliability and objectivity.

Scientists have come up with the difference between explanation and description. That is why they are able to describe the elements of the ordinary world, but they cannot explain them. It is wrong for philosophers or anybody else to change the meaning of words compared to their general meaning. The philosophers should take time to understand what the scientist meant before refuting their claims. Big bang Theory also explains the production of light in the first few minutes of the growing universe. They applied all the equations that would govern different rates at which nuclear reaction would take place (Gleisier 7). It concludes that within the first few minutes, quarter of the universe mass was left in appearance of helium with the rest being hydrogen and other mixtures. However, the calculations faced some irregularities.

Conclusion

Science can never conclude everything because of the limitations of the conditions under which the theories builds. There will always be questions of origin. Most of the things people want to learn are accidents of life. Furthermore, science has not explained the moral principles of life. People learn on the evolving would to justify some human behavior. Scientific knowledge cannot be conclusive because of the many limitations they face. Personal judgment is one of the hindrances that alter the results. The issues of recorded material include editing and falsification, which may totally alter the results of a given research. Many western philosophers have worked hard to conclude physics, and it is fruitless. Knowledge is a questionable field because there is no concrete method of measuring it. Scientific knowledge is not the supreme knowledge since no conclusions show clearly the origin of most things. Furthermore, it is important to leave the unanswered questions in order to make the human race eager to research more, hence discover more.