Appreciate the reply. However we still seem hung up on "science provides answers" fallacy. I'll do my best but this is not exactly easy to explain, nor is it even my original idea. This is a topic with a lot of history and it is probably best to start there, namely with Greek philosophy (a rather large undertaking in and of itself).
But to be specific with your examples:
how plants use sunlight to create energy. That's an answer science gave us.
Science gave us no such answer. Consider what your question even is. "How do plants convert sunlight into energy?" At no point does science produce an answer to your question. What science produces, is a series of reproducible models. We then take a look at those models, and form an interpretation. We observe a compound we call chlorophyl, and the biochemical processes related to its mechanism, and can then show a model that describes the various stages of the process.
At no point did science provide an answer. Because answers involve cognition, and interpretation, all of which reside entirely outside of the scientific mechanism.
At no point does science take the model it produced, and then derive higher meaning from it. That, is something that you do, entirely within your mind, outside of the scientific process itself.
Are you following?
You pick a topic. I will give an example of how science answered a question relating to that topic.
It would be more fair for you to pick the topic, because I am going to pick topics that science has continually failed to provide answers for, well, for millennia now.
What is the meaning of life
What is consciousness
Is the reductive materialist model an accurate representation of relality
I could go on and on, but the point should hopefully be clear. The practice of science in no way provides actual answers to questions. All science can ever hope to do is to produce a model. That model may or may not be useful, the determination of which is an entirely separate level of cognition that science itself lacks the ability to affect.
At best, science can inform the individual who seeks answers. But ultimately those answers are derived outside of science itself.
Appreciate the reply. However we still seem hung up on "science provides answers" fallacy. I'll do my best but this is not exactly easy to explain, nor is it even my original idea. This is a topic with a lot of history and it is probably best to start there, namely with Greek philosophy (a rather large undertaking in and of itself).
But to be specific with your examples:
Science gave us no such answer. Consider what your question even is. "How do plants convert sunlight into energy?" At no point does science produce an answer to your question. What science produces, is a series of reproducible models. We then take a look at those models, and form an interpretation. We observe a compound we call chlorophyl, and the biochemical processes related to its mechanism, and can then show a model that describes the various stages of the process.
At no point did science provide an answer. Because answers involve cognition, and interpretation, all of which reside entirely outside of the scientific mechanism.
At no point does science take the model it produced, and then derive higher meaning from it. That, is something that you do, entirely within your mind, outside of the scientific process itself.
Are you following?
It would be more fair for you to pick the topic, because I am going to pick topics that science has continually failed to provide answers for, well, for millennia now.
I could go on and on, but the point should hopefully be clear. The practice of science in no way provides actual answers to questions. All science can ever hope to do is to produce a model. That model may or may not be useful, the determination of which is an entirely separate level of cognition that science itself lacks the ability to affect.
At best, science can inform the individual who seeks answers. But ultimately those answers are derived outside of science itself.