Anthony North: As more and more powerful telescopes look into the cosmos, the more our astronomers and cosmologists claim to know about the universe. But is our growing knowledge as simple as that? One thing that worries me is the fact that any new discovery seems to offer a great deal of excitement, but only mild surprise. It is as if whatever is found fits quite neatly into our view of things. One answer to this is that our theories are right.: We have a good grasp of the universal construct. We are on the right track, and soon everything will be disclosed. But there is another answer. This concerns the nature of what we can know. For instance, many 'realities' could be out there, but we are only capable of imagining a certain set of principles. Even if the result of them was there to be seen, we would miss them. Consider our senses.: They have limits. We cannot have the sensual acuity of a dog, for instance. Neither can we sense things like a bat. We are limited in knowing what we can sense and experience. This is why we have technology to measure things, such as those powerful telescopes. But even here, they can be limited in a similar way to sensory us. In effect, they can only 'see' what we can conceive can be seen. They are only built to extend what we can already experience, and not create new experience. The universe we see is therefore an image of our imaginings. : But what is the nature of the knowledge that accrues from our imaginings? Well, if the above is correct, we can say that it is very limited.And a little knowledge is famed for producing what can be classed as the delusional. Now, I don't mean this in a way that suggests that our cosmologists, etc, are mad. But a little knowledge does suggest that they may fill in the pieces with ideas that are closer to ‘belief' than rationality. People who believe things can become evangelical. : We see this all the time in fundamentalist religious movements. And it is becoming clear to many on the sidelines of science that a similar thing is happening.