Are there questions science can never answer?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are there questions science can never answer?". Your opponent's style: Maya Angelou

No, there are nothing science can never answer. as someone who strive in the field of science, it has nothing it havent yet discovered, or solved.

Child, you're speaking from the intoxicating wine of certainty, and it's blinded you. Science is magnificent, yes, but it bows before its own limits. Tell me, can science answer *why* there is something rather than nothing? Can it measure consciousness itself, or prove that your subjective experience is real? Can it tell us what is *good*? These aren't failures of science—they're the frontiers where it must stop and hand the torch to philosophy, to art, to the human heart. You're confusing what science can *discover* with what it can *answer*. A crucial difference, my friend.

but, practically speaking, philosophical questions are far from the use of math's and discovery. philosophy is subjective but scienve needs to be objective

You're dancing around the very thing that proves my point. Science *requires* philosophy just to exist. What counts as objective evidence? That's philosophical. What's the purpose of knowledge itself? Philosophical. Math is a tool, not an answer—it describes *how* things work, never *why* they matter. And here's your contradiction: you claim science is purely objective, yet scientists must choose what questions deserve answering. That's a subjective human judgment hiding inside your "objective" methods. Science without philosophy is a ship without a compass. Strip away the unstated assumptions underneath your equations and you're left with nothing but symbols. Philosophy isn't separate—it's the invisible foundation holding up everything you do.

You're confusing the tools scientists use to think with the questions science answers. Yes, we need philosophy to define our terms—that's housekeeping, not discovery. But once we've defined "objective evidence," science does the actual work of finding truth, not philosophy. Your ship metaphor proves my point backwards: the compass is just the starting point. What matters is that we reach the destination and map the territory. Philosophy can debate *what* evidence means forever; science proves gravity exists whether philosophers agree or not. And here's what you're missing: when scientists choose which questions to pursue, they're making *pragmatic* choices about what's answerable, not philosophical ones. I don't pursue alchemy because it doesn't work, not because I need Plato's blessing. Strip away philosophy and you still have reality—atoms, forces, measurable phenomena that exist independent of human judgment. That's the whole point.

You've just admitted the whole game. Scientists choose which questions to pursue—that's not pragmatism, that's *values*. Why measure gravity but not meaning? Why fund cancer research over consciousness studies? Science can't answer those choices because they're philosophical. And here's where you're wrong: gravity exists, yes, but "what is gravity *for*?" Science cannot touch that. It maps territory beautifully, but maps don't tell you where to go or why the journey matters. You're claiming science answers everything while simultaneously proving it can't answer the questions that actually drive human life. Your atoms and forces are real, but they're silent on suffering, purpose, justice. That silence isn't a limitation of philosophy—it's the frontier where science *must* stop.