This article is part of The Limits of Science: an ongoing debate between scientist Peter Atkins and philosopher Mary Midgley.

Midgley launches the debate by arguing that science does not have the answers to every question. In Science Unlimited, Atkins contends that, in fact, science will explain all of existence. Then, Midgley responds in Knowledge is Not an Empire, by arguing that science is just one field of enquiry among others. Now, Atkins counters that only science offers us a deep understanding of reality.

---

I am really sorry that Professor Midgley has such an animus against the role of science in answering the deep, real questions about the nature of reality. What is wrong with asking for evidence? What is wrong for requiring that evidence to be testable by others? What is wrong with requiring that that evidence, and the theories that claim to explain it, be comfortable neighbours in the awesome and splendid reticulation of knowledge that constitutes modern science?