It is interesting to note that Science will probably never achieve “full knowledge” and predictive power over nature, due to the randomness of quantum physics; meanwhile, Science may achieve the ability to offer guidance for the realm of determining what “should” be done - the latter position being temporarily managed by a Philosophy of the Gaps, just as the Supernatural has ceded its role to become a God of the Gaps.
Your first point about science probably never being complete is a valid one—it's an open question whether or not mathematical models can ever perfectly capture nature, because it's possible that there is some degree randomness of in nature that we can't predict.
However, I don't think your objection about a 'philosophy of the gaps' is valid. A 'philosophy of the gaps' would mean inventing explanations for causal links in nature that science can't account for yet. I'm not suggesting we do this—science is a work in progress, and I'm confident it can close all causal gaps in nature (in so far as nature's inherent randomness allows).
What I am arguing instead, is that science can't achieve the ability to give us guidance about what 'should' be done, since science is a purely descriptive project. Science can certainly tell us the most efficient way of killing cancer cells, but it can also tell us the most efficient way of building a nuclear bomb. Science isn't able to tell us which to do; in order to select one course of action over another, we need to bring in conceptions of what is good, or what the right course of action is from some other source (philosophy). Since statements about value (good and bad) can't be derived from descriptive statements, science can't offer guidance about what 'should' be done—it only tells us what can be done.
It is interesting to note that Science will probably never achieve “full knowledge” and predictive power over nature, due to the randomness of quantum physics; meanwhile, Science may achieve the ability to offer guidance for the realm of determining what “should” be done - the latter position being temporarily managed by a Philosophy of the Gaps, just as the Supernatural has ceded its role to become a God of the Gaps.
Your first point about science probably never being complete is a valid one—it's an open question whether or not mathematical models can ever perfectly capture nature, because it's possible that there is some degree randomness of in nature that we can't predict.
However, I don't think your objection about a 'philosophy of the gaps' is valid. A 'philosophy of the gaps' would mean inventing explanations for causal links in nature that science can't account for yet. I'm not suggesting we do this—science is a work in progress, and I'm confident it can close all causal gaps in nature (in so far as nature's inherent randomness allows).
What I am arguing instead, is that science can't achieve the ability to give us guidance about what 'should' be done, since science is a purely descriptive project. Science can certainly tell us the most efficient way of killing cancer cells, but it can also tell us the most efficient way of building a nuclear bomb. Science isn't able to tell us which to do; in order to select one course of action over another, we need to bring in conceptions of what is good, or what the right course of action is from some other source (philosophy). Since statements about value (good and bad) can't be derived from descriptive statements, science can't offer guidance about what 'should' be done—it only tells us what can be done.