Posted: Nov 11, 2010 4:42 pm
by IanS
sanja wrote:Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg also thought that science cannot discover everything, that there are some things where intuition suits better.
They were scientists.

Do you think their definition of science was woolly and unsustainable?


Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg are not likely to be unusual in saying they think "science cannot discover everything".
That's just a statement of what is likely to be in practice, the blindingly obvious. It's like saying that we cannot do literally "everything". That's not even worth saying.

Nor is it likely that any scientists would rule out "intuition" as entirely useless. It all depends what sort of investigative situation you are talking about.

In most everyday situations it would be a practical impossibility to make a detailed rigorous scientific analysis.

Instead in everyday situations like that, we usually just make an educated guess (ie we use our "intuition"). Eg, if you like hearing a certain piece of music, you are hardly likely to insist that you must delay any judgement about whether you liked it or not until you have made a full scientific analysis of all the sounds & frequencies involved, all their effects on human hearing and their associated effects on the human brain and upon historical & social conditioning etc etc.

But that does not mean it's better to rely on intuition rather than making scientific experiments and mathematical calculations when doing serious scientific research.

IOW - you are in danger of making a semantic argument in the misuse of words ... eg in order to suggest a false conclusion (ie that intuition is sometimes a better method than proper research in solving specific scientific problems, such as how our universe came into existence).