1

Scientific research involves the investigation of difficult problems, and constantly tries to explain the unknown through observations and logical reasoning.

Take a situation like finding a cure for Alzheimer's. Considered the graveyard of pharmaceutical R&D, some brilliant minds have attempted to create a drug that alleviates the disease but to no avail. The most that we currently have are medications that treat symptoms. The most recent attempt, Aduhelm, was quickly pushed through the FDA even though it showed lackluster results. Society may or may not see a cure.

Whenever a potential solution fails, a scientist would say that more research needs to be done as there might be a mysterious factor that plays a critical role in disease pathology.

**Is there a time when it is no longer rational to seek an explanation given current conditions? Are the explanations that are inherently beyond human powers of investigation? Are there brute facts that simply have no explanation? **

DdogBoss
  • 103
  • 5
  • 2
    See [brute fact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_fact) which cannot be further explained in terms of a deeper, more "fundamental" fact. For instance philosopher James Van Cleve believes that brute necessities cannot be excluded. It's contrary to infinitism and principle of sufficient reason... – Double Knot Jun 14 '22 at 21:20
  • "Is there ever a time to say that there is no explanation? Or is human creativity so infinite that a solution will be found?" There is a false dichotomy here. While it is extremely presumptuous to claim that something will never be explained, it still might very well never be, if only because research is constrained by material conditions. Lets say global nuclear war starts tomorrow, advanced research programs like particle accelerators or the ISS will probably be discontinued forever, and all the results they would have found next week, while theoretically in our reach, lost forever. – armand Jun 15 '22 at 03:31
  • @armand Ok. What options would be better proposed to fix the false dichotomy? – DdogBoss Jun 15 '22 at 04:03
  • 1
    Imho remove the sentence about human creativity to keep the question focused. The amount of research humanity can conduct through its existence being limited by the finite resource at its disposal, creativity is probably not the limiting factor here. Yet, has there is no way we can be sure that all the ways of inquiry about a given question are exhausted, it appears as hubris to claim something can't be explained. – armand Jun 15 '22 at 04:23
  • I'd like to endorse @armand's comment about removing the false dichotomy. Also, it would help if you would clarify between three related questions: 1. Is there a time when it is no longer rational to seek an explanation given current conditions? 2. Are the explanations that are inherently beyond human powers of investigation? 3. Are there brute facts that simply have no explanation? Which question are you asking? – David Gudeman Jun 15 '22 at 13:53
  • @DavidGudeman Let's ask all three. Thanks for the suggestions. – DdogBoss Jun 15 '22 at 21:25
  • I argue here that being open to experiences, that we then must try to integrate & explain, is deeply connected to what being alive is: 'Can the Universe make sense at all?' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/81056/can-the-universe-make-sense-at-all/81064#81064 "Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand." -Vonnegut. No limits except time, no end to understanding except death. – CriglCragl Jul 16 '22 at 09:24

2 Answers2

1

Religion can always explain every phenomena with the explanation that "God did it."

I think scientists could also always offer explanations for any phenomena in the form of hypotheses. However, there may not be enough data or evidence to form a definitive hypothesis or explanation.

For example, take the question: "How did modern jellyfish evolve?" There are several competing hypotheses, but this question may never have a single definitive explanation because jellyfish don't leave much of a fossil record.

Connor Garcia
  • 136
  • 2
1

Is there a time when it is no longer rational to seek an explanation given current conditions?

It's rational to cease the search for an explanation when a rational explanation has been found but its not irrational to continue the search for an explanation when none has been found. Now the case when a rational explanation is given and the search still continues is up for philosophical debate.