Limitation of Science

Whenever somebody debunks a miracle somebody starts to talk about “limitation of science” etc. what exactly you mean by this?? I think we need to differentiate between science and scientism here. Science is a successful method in understanding natural world.  In understanding the natural world one as no other method. But it has also its boundaries one of the famous being difference between fact and value. (David hume’s is/ought fallacy  see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem ) It is logically impossible to derive ‘ought’(what should be done?) from ‘is’ (what it is - facts). But it doesn’t mean anything goes. For dealing with ethical issues there is a subject of moral philosophy. Every field has its own method and fields of enquiry. All fields are interconnected since they all study about different parts of the same world. So when dealing with values we need to take into account of facts. Scientism refers to the view that only science is the legitimate view of inequiry and this is clearly wrong. See (http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.in/2009/11/on-difference-between-science-and.html and http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.in/2013/01/michael-shermer-on-morality.html)  But none of this is a justification for w some baba starts to speak nonsense about physics etc and when questioned people starts talking about “limitation of science” etc.when talking about natural world one needs to use the method used  to enquire it i.e. science

Regarding scientism popular Hindu(same thing regarding other religions)  religious apologetics is one field full of scientism and confusion between philosophy and science etc. I have already blogged (about it and I will write in details about it later