TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Your letters: Science cannot tell us 'why'
Ever since physics was taught in schools and universities, weâve grown accustomed to âscientific learning and methodsâ
Change Size
E
ver since physics was taught in schools and universities, we've grown accustomed to 'scientific learning and methods'. From the laws of thermodynamics and Einstein's relativity, to the recently founded string theory, we study science in a manner that requires us to find a problem and look at how that comes about.
Through the years, science has answered a lot of questions: 'What is the smallest part of matter?', 'Is the Earth really flat?' and 'How does a black hole form?' Science will no doubt answer a lot more. But all of these questions virtually only cover two things: the 'what', and the 'how'. Why is this so? It is because science relies a lot on empiricism. It is empirical, thus it needs only empirical evidence (that can be comprehended by our five senses) followed by a conclusion.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. After all, science has made an enormous amount of breakthroughs using empiricism, but sometimes science has its own limitations due to the fact that its 'job description', is to 'identify' certain phenomena. That's why science can't answer questions starting with 'why'.
There are a lot of people who believe science is the answer to everything. Take Stephen Hawking, who is famous for his intelligence and work on theoretical physics. He holds an utter belief in science, to the extent he says that science will beat religion because it works.
But from that statement, a question popped into my mind: Is science alone enough? Why don't we take something that can provide us another point of view? By that, I mean something capable of giving us the answer to the 'why'.
It's beneficial not to take something from only one viewpoint, for it enriches our 'ammo' when attempting to pin down a conclusion. And just like war, the more ammo you have the better. Take Western and Chinese medicine.
There are things in Chinese medicine that don't make sense at all to Western doctors. But hey, they work. So why don't we take them as ammunition?
Also, the existence of God. A lot of physicists don't believe God exists and science also suggests so as well. But I believe it requires more than just science to prove that. That's why I take religion as my 'ammo' when it comes to proving God's existence beside science. However, there's a lot more sources on that and it's your call to choose where to get them from.
Science is a powerful tool when it comes to figuring out things and solving problems. But there are some questions that science can't answer.
Hence, we need to find another source to answer what is out of science's reach. It could be anything, from religion, belief, faith or something plainly weird, as long as you are certain it's reliable. It's up to us to seek it.
Faisal
Jakarta
