What an extraordinarily interesting question. Unfortunately, after it made my head spin round uncontrollably for a while, I can't come up with anything interesting to say about it.

On the one hand, it would seem extraordinarily and dangerously arrogant for us to think that the scientific method as we now understand it is 'it', and all that we will ever need, or have, to understand the universe better and better is more and more of it.

On the other hand, it really is very difficult to see what a further stage in human understanding of the world could possibly look like, other than deeper, more coherent and more profoundly explanatory 'science'. In other words much, much more of the same. The science of three, ten, thirty centuries time might make our current science look very feeble and tentative indeed in explanatory power, but it is difficult to imagine it as being other than still recognisably 'science'.

I suppose a related question is whether, and when, we will bump up against the limits of what the human mind is capable of understanding. There must be some limit. A dog's brain, however hard the dog tries, and however expert the maths tuition, will never be able to solve quadratic equations. Our brains, also the product of practical evolution (so our science itself tells us), will similarly have limits. We just don't know what they are and I think (a little hobby of mine this) there are possibly reasons why we couldn't in principle recognise if and when we had bumped up against those limits.

It's certainly a principle of the scientific enterprise that we shouldn't ever throw the towel in and say we have now reached the (human) limits of understanding. But it would be supreme arrogance to assume that there aren't such limits. FWIW, I think it is astounding, and itself requires an explanation which we don't begin to have yet, that we have got as far as we have in understanding the macroscopic and sub-microscopic nature of the universe when evolution would only seem to require that we understand enough  -  plus a bit for safety   -  to manoeuvre reasonably successfully around middle-sized, reasonably stable stuff. We already seem to understand far more than we 'should'.

I've absolutely no idea of course, which is part of the fun, but my guess would be that we will (without knowing it ) bump up against the conceptual and cognitive limits of the human mind (even the human mind artificially enhanced, by us) before we exhaust 'science' and move into some 'post-scientific' age.

But then, in our situation, that's probably what we would think anyway. Doh! There's always a twist  

Another pure guess, is that might well find ourselves getting more and more stuck and frustrated in areas where reflexivity comes into play, understanding our own consciousness, the brain trying to comprehend itself, and all that, and also in trying to get an atemporal understanding of time (which I think is likely to be related). Stuff like that (which unfortunately turns out not to be nice amenable 'stuff' at all ). Science doesn't seem to be able to get a handle on it yet, and it's just possible it may not be able to (not that I'm suggesting for a moment we should give up trying). 

I think what I am trying to say is, dunno .  Exciting question though .

[And just a quick comment on Ian's post 194, I don't think that 'science' needs to be regarded as implying, or relying on, determinism being true. It, broadly speaking, follows the evidence where it goes. But perhaps you weren't meaning to imply otherwise anyway, Ian?]

You may have some thoughts on your own question, Richard?

Yes I do, but (don't laugh) they tend to come out more readily in musical form.

Well, I was referring specifically to a 'scientific' model of human behaviour. 'Determinism' is perhaps the wrong word, I was referring more to the notion that one can study human beings like objects. And I am going to come in with an Adorno/Horkheimer-esque argument here - they argued that fundamental to the Enlightenment (and I see science as an intrinsic part of this) was the desire to dominate nature, rather than being dominated by nature in the form of myth or other types of irrational phenomena. But the crucial blind spot there (which accords with Marxist thinking) is to miss the fact that human beings are part of nature (which resonates a little with what you were saying about reflexivity, which to me is an absolutely essential condition for any sort of meaningful knowledge). And thus at its most extreme form, fundamentalist Enlightenment principles (when science becomes ideology - as it continues to do in the minds of some) lead to the domination and subjugation of other human beings (this view is sometimes rendered in a simplistic manner as 'the Enlightenment leads to the gas chambers' or the like - A & H would never put it in anything like as crude a form, but would also maintain that the two things are not entirely separable). I'll just say from this that if we conceive of human beings like objects, then it becomes much easier to treat them like objects.

That's what, as a non-empiricist, I cannot accept at all. To conceive of, let alone extrapolate from, the evidence, requires a priori categories for shaping experience, and epistemological assumptions as well. This view of science I would call ideological. Which is not to collapse into a melange of total postmodern relativism by any means - that's a dangerous point of view, I reckon - but to emphasise (in Kuhnian fashion) the relative degrees of contingency of various types of scientific knowledge.

I was reading some letter in the times saying that the old latin masses in Ireland had minimal music content, that that was a significant contributor to a general feeling of "meh" that the decision brought to him, and many of his generation and background.

I think the problem here is about the treatment of people as objects, rather than the route at which one arrives at it.  Science - and more specifically technology - were surely about the understanding of the environment with a view to subjugating it; but the truth that human beings are a part of nature can also very easily be turned into a world-view in which individual humans are treated as objects.  It can lead to reactionary ideologies of nature-worship or racial discrimination.  The answer seems to me to lie in an honest approach to scientific methodology - lay bare the axioms, and make it absolutely clear what the underlying assumptions are, so that they can be debated and challenged.

Fair point: I just don't see the debate as being especially mainstream, inviting the sort of fundamental argument that has accompanied the scientific revolutions of the past, about humanity and its significance.  It's my impression that as a society we tend to shy away from these issues, but perhaps that's just native pessimism  ....

Popper's ideas on science and explanation are examined and contrasted with Kuhn's (to the disadvantage of the latter) in David Deutsch's extraordinary (and beautifully written) book The Fabric of Reality, which is always in the back of my mind when thinking about or discussing issues like the present ones.

Sure (was hoping you'd offer your own translation) - wasn't exactly sure whether the second clause is best translated like that, so left it in German. John Cumming translates it as 'Myth turns into enlightenment, and nature into mere objectivity', but considering that, for example, he also translates 'eine grobe Erfindung' (in the context of the printing press) literally as 'a gross invention', I was a bit sceptical about what he would come up with. I don't have the Jephcott translation here, alas.