Ana asked:

I'm a Portuguese student and my question might be difficult to answer: does science contribute to the
meaning of life search? Does it gives reasons to live and meaning to our lives?

============

This is a very interesting question that touches upon a very wide range of issues. My belief is that
whilst science is incredibly effective in providing us with one particular type of knowledge, the
assumptions upon which it is based prevent it from answering other questions. When we think that
science is the onlyway of gaining objective knowledge we seriously restrict our quest for a total
understanding of reality.

Science can a) tell us about the workings of the natural world, b) help us make predictions concerning
the natural world, and c) provide the basis upon which incredible technological advances rest.

Science undoubtedly performs these tasks extremely well. As a rigorous and systematic method of
inquiry, science is unique. It is one of humankind's great achievements that has benefited the lives of
us all.

Science is however based on certain assumptions that render it incapable of answering other
questions such as the meaning of life. Scientific knowledge is based on a "split" between the realm of
the observer and the realm of the observed. This split has its origin in Descartes' division of the world
into mental substance and extended substance (between mind and matter basically). Within this
division the observer (mind) is the loci and source of all value. In contrast, the observed (matter) is
value-less. It exists without intrinsic value. Any value it has must be imposed on to it from the
observer. The observer can manipulate this value-less matter in any way she or he chooses in order
to understand its functioning. This is what happens in an experiment.

The scientist's manipulation of this matter, if performed properly, will give us information about how
this matter functions. As a result of this it may be possible to make predictions about how we expect
this matter to behave and we then may be able to use this information to build new technology.

It would, however, be absolutely impossible for the scientist to derive any objective meaning to life or
any other philosophical knowledge from the data she or he collects. The "raw material" she or he
works with is, by definition, value-less. To derive any philosophical truths from this data would
therefore be a mistake. Any philosophical knowledge must come from "outside" this value-less
indifferent matter. The scientist may be able to explain and predict the outcome of a particular
chemical reaction for example. The answer to the question of whether this chemical reaction is
morally good or not cannot, by definition, be found in scientific knowledge. The answer to this
question could only be found through some other form of enquiry.

This is not to say that science should be rejected. Rather, science should be seen as one extremely
effective method for gathering a certain type of knowledge about the world. It does, however, have its
limitations. There are certain questions which science cannot and should not attempt to answer.

In today's age when we are presented with wonderful technological advances on a daily basis there is
an unfortunate tendency however to see science as the onlymeans by which true, objective,
knowledge may be obtained. This belief can be described as scientism.The rigorous experimental
methods employed by scientists, the status (and funding) that science enjoys all contribute to an
increasing culture of scientism.

The problem with a scientistic culture is that it assumes that the questions which science cannot
answer do not therefore have an objective true answer. Questions concerning meaning in life and
ethics for example are assumed to have no objective truthful answer. As a result, relativism in the
field of ethics, politics and indeed all subjects that are not amenable to scientific investigation
dominates.

Simon Drew