Science Can Answer 'What' and 'How', but Not 'Why'.
Ever since physics is taught in schools and unis, we've grown accustomed to the 'scientific learning and method'. From the laws of thermodynamics, einstein's relativity, to the recently founded string theory, we study science in a manner that requires us to find a problem/happening, and how does it happen.
Throughout the years, science has answered a lot of questions, take for instance “what is the smallest part of a matter?”, “Is earth really flat?“, and “How does a black hole form?”, and, obvious enough, science will be answering a lot more.
But all of those questions, virtually, only cover two things; the “what”, and the “how”. Why so? Because science relies a lot on empiricism. It is empirical. Therefore, it needs only empirical evidence (can be comprehended by our five senses), followed by a conclusion afterwards.
I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing. After all, science has made enormous amount of breakthroughs using empiricism. But sometimes, science has its own limitation, due to the fact that its ‘job description’, is to ‘identify’ a certain phenomena. That’s why science can’t answer questions started with “why”.
There’s a lot of people believing that science is the answer of everything. Take for example, Stephen Hawking. Famous for his intelligence and works on theoretical physics, he holds an utter belief in science, to an extent where he said that science will beat religion because it works. But from that statement, a question popped out from my mind; “Is science alone enough?” Why don’t we take something that can provide us another point of view? –and by that, I mean the one capable of giving us the answer of “why” questions-.
I think it’s beneficial for us not to take something from only one viewpoint, for it enriches our ‘ammo’ used when pinning down a conclusion. And just like war, the more ammo you got, the better. Take for example, western and Chinese medicine. There are things of the Chinese meds that doesn’t make sense at all to the western doctors. But hey, it works. So why don’t we take those as ammunition? Also, the existence of god. A lot of physicists don’t believe that god exists, and science suggests so as well. But I believe that 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 besides science. Though there’s a lot more sources of that, and it’s your call to choose where to get that.
Off to the conclusion – Science is a powerful tool when it comes to figuring out things and solving problems. But there’re some questions that science can’t answer. Hence, we need to find another sources 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 certain that it’s reliable. And, it’s up to us to seek it.
P.S: I don't really know whether or not this thread should be a discussion thread, since I just want to write what's in my head, but if you have something to add, or argue about, feel free to do so