No room for magic?

[HonestJoe]

If I understand correctly, consciousness has been surprising the young minds trying to tackle such a concept, and teaching that not all things are easily or capable of being explained or categorized.

Again, human inability to fully understand something (yet?) doesn't mean that thing is beyond the scope of scientific method. It takes scientific method for us to establish what we don't understand about something after all.

The proposition in the thread isn't just that there is something humans can't understand, it is that there is something outside the scope of science as a fundamental principle. Nobody has yet explained how that could even be possible, let alone whether it might actually be the case.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Again, human inability to fully understand something (yet?) doesn't mean that thing is beyond the scope of scientific method. It takes scientific method for us to establish what we don't understand about something after all.

The proposition in the thread isn't just that there is something humans can't understand, it is that there is something outside the scope of science as a fundamental principle. Nobody has yet explained how that could even be possible, let alone whether it might actually be the case.

I've seen knowledge described similar to the four following types/tiers:

¹Prescience: What we know that we know.
²Intuitional: What we don't know that we knew.
³Skeptical: What we know we don't know.
⁴Nescience: What we couldn't know that we don't know.

I don't think I'm articulate enough to give a good explanation or example of how, but my assumption (and hopes kind of) is that we never quite get consciousness under our thumb to try and replicate.

 

[HonestJoe]

I don't think I'm articulate enough to give a good explanation or example of how, but my assumption (and hopes kind of) is that we never quite get consciousness under our thumb to try and replicate.

Our "hopes" are irrelevant to the truth (even truths we're not aware of). Even if you assumption were correct, you're still only talking in the context of what human beings will ever be capable of. That is entirely different to saying something is beyond the scope of science.

Human beings will likely never be able to weigh any rocks on the any planet in the Alpha Centauri solar system. That doesn't mean weighing a rock isn't an application of science.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

But with sensitive enough equipment, we don't need to go to A-Centauri to determine the mass and weight of objects upon it's planetoids.

Maybe this fits the criteria: What occurred before the Planck epoch? Before the phenomenon that we recognize as physics weren't possible in that environment, the claim is that the physics that cause the phenomenon of 'time'... 'had yet to begin'... Which is simply a paradoxical and therefore impossible statement. The key thing being that our method of measuring and describing the observed universe may only be accurate in the environment we currently recognize.