Section 2 — Science and Truth Grammar focus

Session 7 Grammar: Discussing the limits of empirical knowledge

Science is powerful — but it has a scope. These structures let you draw clear, respectful lines between what empirical methods can tell us and what lies beyond their reach, without dismissing either side.

Grammar Focus

"Science can tell us X, but not Y..." / "This is beyond what empirical methods can show..." / "That's a question of values, not facts..."

One of the most intellectually important distinctions in public discourse is between empirical questions — which science can address — and normative or metaphysical questions, which it cannot. "Science can tell us X, but not Y..." uses a contrast structure to draw the boundary precisely, acknowledging what science contributes without overclaiming. "This is beyond what empirical methods can show..." is a formal way of saying a question falls outside science's jurisdiction — not that science is wrong, but that it is the wrong tool for this particular job. "That's a question of values, not facts..." is a concise and powerful distinction: it separates is from ought, description from prescription. These structures prevent two common errors: scientism (treating science as the answer to all questions) and anti-science (treating its limits as failures).

"Science can tell us how the brain processes grief, but it cannot tell us whether grief has meaning." (clear X/not-Y boundary)

"This is beyond what empirical methods can show — whether life has purpose is a philosophical question, not a scientific one." (scope limitation, respectful)

"That's a question of values, not facts — science can describe income inequality, but it cannot tell us whether it's unjust." (is/ought distinction)

"Data can inform this decision, but it cannot make it for us — that requires a moral judgment." (evidence informs, doesn't determine)

"The question of whether consciousness survives death is not one that neuroscience is equipped to answer." (domain boundary)

"We can measure the effects of a policy with great precision — but whether those effects are desirable is a separate conversation." (measuring vs. evaluating)

Variations to practice

Data can inform this, but it cannot decide it... That falls outside the scope of empirical inquiry... Science describes; it doesn't prescribe... That's a philosophical question, not a scientific one... The evidence can take us only so far here... What ought to be done is a values question... This is where science hands off to ethics... Measurement can't settle a moral dispute...