Can science explain everything?

[Kung Pow]

No, to explain everything is also to assume that the unexplainable, as a hard reality, does not exist, which cannot be proven.
Science is also just a tool, it isn't reality, mainly because science deals with cut parts of it and reality is a combinations of things. A dog, for example, exists as a physical, chemical, biological, sociological, mathematical, etc. being, maybe even in a unnamed science that is yet to be discovered. We only exist on Earth, what else could exist out there that could completely shake our understanding of the universe?

 

[ToroidalBoat]

If "metaphysical naturalism" is true, then science may be able to explain everything.

But if the "supernatural" is real, then no. Especially if there is a spiritual realm.

 

[CowPox]

You don't even know what "science" means, just stick with a wizard from another dimension poofed it all into existence one day for no reason.

 

[Jelli]

I believe the definition of science is something like:
Observations provide statistical insight into a single fundamental reality.

If I test dropping 100 random things, and I observe that 99 of the things fall to the ground and 1 flies away. I can infer "most things fall to the ground in reality." Science notably has nothing to say about why the piece of paper I dropped didn't hit the ground.

I can construct tests that remove variables from the observation (doing the same test inside) or improves observation (following the paper and seeing it does hit the ground) but fundamentally it can only answer things that can have their effects observed.

Humans have observed a lot of things falling most of the time they just fall, sometimes they explode and scatter debris over several states, sometimes they float up into the upper atmosphere and pop, theoretically there is an infinitesimal possibility that it will instantaneously appear on the opposite side of the planet. "Most things fall down" isn't true exactly but it is a very good approximation for most cases.

But that's kind of dodging the question, most science is not the 99.999999999% offered by physics experiments. It is the "this gene marker increases your odds of cancer by 2%" shit, where causation isn't even implied. I think the claims made by science are lot weaker than people give it credit for, and always come with error bars. Human institutions are more than willing to do science in bad faith.

Fundamentally I don't think it is possible to prove anything in an absolute sense. But I do think repeated observation provides insight into reality, and I think it is very useful and powerful paradigm. But not everything falls to the earth, and I see no reason to assume just because we can use it to predict a lot of things that means it can predict everything.