Re: Whence the notion of unending science?

On 29 Sep, 01:01, Barb Knox <s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article <euRBk.657$MN3....@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
> =A0Marvin <physc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Ken Miner wrote:
> > > In nearly every popular account of science and the scientific
method,=
 we are
> > > told that "we will never understand everything". My question is
simpl=
y, why
> > > do we say that? Complete knowledge does not seem to violate any
logic=
al
> > > principle; etc.

Complete knowledge reduces to static omnicomprehension and so it is
incongruent with the principles of dynamism underlying the historical
discourse. Thus, a history of science where science will a day
understand everything is a logical impossibility. []

More informally: a perspective that admits complete knowledge is only
compatible with a perspective that is fundamentally anti-historic.
Something like a contradiction in terms.

-LV

> > > I have put this question to scientists many times; the only actual
an=
swer I
> > > have ever received is that we know that past science was always
wrong=
 in
> > > various respects, so any present science is also. So is it just an
in=
ductive
> > > argument?
>
> > > And when did we start saying this?
>
> > > Any insight appreciated.
>
> > > Ken
>
> > Personally, I'd say that we can never be absolutely sure
> > that any theory is correct under all conditions.
> > There is a mathematical theorem that no system of logic is totally
> > consistent.
>
> No, there isn't.