Tao, I think on Kuhn you are missing the wider context through which to interpret what Snoopy quoted. Kuhn's work was developed, in part, to explain paradigm shifts in science... which do occur, and Kuhn's work has been the best explanation for how and why they occur (in my opinion and those of many other scientists). This Wiki article sums up pretty well and probably would allow you to understand the context a bit better. Kuhn wasn't arguing against science, but rather, being a historian of science, was interested in how it actually works rather than promoting ignorance about its ties to worldview and social dynamics.
Paradigm shift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As for the question about what cannot be approached through science, I think there are a number of factors there. First, there are things that must be approached primarily through philosophy, even if they are considered science, because they are not yet amenable to the scientific method. Much of modern physics is in an in-between space between science and philosophy; math is a language used to express new ideas in this field but so far there is little we can do to prove or disprove many of the ideas that are coming out- string theory, many worlds theory, etc. The definition of science as being always inquiring, always pushing the boundaries of knowledge, is not unique to science alone, but can also be seen in certain types of mysticism, magic, and other such modes of inquiry that I personally would not want to brand as science but whose practitioners often pursue knowledge in an unrelenting way just as scientists do. A gnostic Christian, for example, pursues knowledge as part of their quest for salvation, but I'd not want to call that science. This is why, for me, science is not defined by its goal, but rather by its approach. Otherwise, it rapidly gets quite messy to categorically separate it from many magical systems. And indeed, some modern magicians (not the rabbit out of hat types, but the energy work types) seek to practice magic according to a scientific method of experimentation and documentation of results. So the messiness of human behavior is bad enough on its own without vague and confusing definitions.
Second, science is not always the best method of inquiry because it is not necessarily the best at communicating information. Science is mostly about how things work, not why things are the way they are or how they affect people individually. Generally, when science and math move into the realm of asking "why" and exploring how they affect us emotionally and psychologically, this moves the scientist into the realm of art and philosophy or even metaphysics. Such movement back and forth between modes of inquiry and communication can result in truly beautiful pieces and is not possible by sticking to the scientific approach without application through the arts... One lovely example is:
Tom Shannon's anti-gravity sculpture | Video on TED.com
I also love this man's work; I have a few pieces:
PORCELAINia
Third, every person is different. Gardner's work on multiple intelligences, as well as others' work (such as Silver and Strong) on learning styles, indicates that different people naturally learn information, process it, and are inherently good at things through different approaches. We evolved to have this diversity for a reason, so why place some people (the analytical-mathematical ones) superior to all others? Why not embrace the diversity inherent in human modes of inquiry?
earl
