We know NOTHING!

[Habitat]

Science is awesome.

The only way we could be said to know nothing, is in the broadest sense. We are like kids in a sandpit who are figuring out how the lego pieces fit together, but how we come to have the set to play with, we know not, though some suspect Santa (God, perhaps, on the adult scale) could have brought it. This is the age-old "Riddle of Existence" and science is utterly impotent before it.

[badeskov]

<snip>

Science is awesome.

Just wanted to emphasize the above. Science is indeed awesome and in my honest opinion, the scientists striving to further science are way too underestimated with respect to integrity and dedication.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[S2F]

This is the age-old "Riddle of Existence" and science is utterly impotent before it.

I disagree. Science is the only useful tool in the face of it.

[Habitat]

I disagree. Science is the only useful tool in the face of it.

That sounds like a faith to me ! The truth is no-one is even capable of conceiving an intelligible or plausible lie, let alone proof, that might explain why anything actually exists. Not talking about a particular something, just anything at all. All anyone has is a mouthful of sawdust to answer it.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Habitat

[Derek Willis]

Just wanted to emphasize the above. Science is indeed awesome and in my honest opinion, the scientists striving to further science are way too underestimated with respect to integrity and dedication.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Scientists and engineers make amazing discoveries and inventions. I know some of them do well out of their efforts, but it is a pity that the really, really big money is made by the stock brokers and bankers who live on the backs of innovators. If more of the profits were shared with scientists and engineers, more kids would want to enter those professions. Yes, people do science and engineering for the love of it, but better salaries would help!

[Waspie_Dwarf]

for ever answer we get, we get 10 more questions.

That's called progress. The more we learn the more we know what questions to ask. That is not the weakness of science, it is its strength.

[JesseCuster]

The only way we could be said to know nothing, is in the broadest sense. We are like kids in a sandpit who are figuring out how the lego pieces fit together, but how we come to have the set to play with, we know not, though some suspect Santa (God, perhaps, on the adult scale) could have brought it. This is the age-old "Riddle of Existence" and science is utterly impotent before it.

Perhaps. But that's not a criticism of science. Scientists are doing a bang-up job of the task given to them. To find out more about how our universe works, from the quantum to the molecular to the cellular to the organism to the ecology to the climate to the planetary to the stellar to the galactic and beyond. And as time goes by our understanding gets better and better.

To criticise science because it can't or hasn't answered questions like "why does the universe exist?" seems to be a pretty petty complaint. No-one has answered those questions. I mean, religions just make **** up and call it a day (typically they simply pass the problem on to God, as if we can't simply ask the same question "why does God exist?").

[JesseCuster]

That sounds like a faith to me ! The truth is no-one is even capable of conceiving an intelligible or plausible lie, let alone proof, that might explain why anything actually exists.

So what? How is that a criticism of science? It seems that you don't like the fact that scientists aren't answering the kind of questions that bar philosophers ask.

[acute]

Gravity is the curvature of space-time caused by mass. Haven't you heard of General Relativity? The theory is only a hundred years old!

A hundred years is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

String Theory aside, very little has happened in Physics since the fifties.

Our theories on gravity will have to be revised in the future.

Not Einstein, nor anyone since, has cracked it.

Edited March 28, 2016 by acute

[Habitat]

So what? How is that a criticism of science? It seems that you don't like the fact that scientists aren't answering the kind of questions that bar philosophers ask.

So what? How is that a criticism of science? It seems that you don't like the fact that scientists aren't answering the kind of questions that bar philosophers ask.

It is a question that has been asked by the soberest people for millenia. Only a fool would believe science has anything to add in the matter.

Perhaps. But that's not a criticism of science. Scientists are doing a bang-up job of the task given to them. To find out more about how our universe works, from the quantum to the molecular to the cellular to the organism to the ecology to the climate to the planetary to the stellar to the galactic and beyond. And as time goes by our understanding gets better and better.

To criticise science because it can't or hasn't answered questions like "why does the universe exist?" seems to be a pretty petty complaint. No-one has answered those questions. I mean, religions just make **** up and call it a day (typically they simply pass the problem on to God, as if we can't simply ask the same question "why does God exist?").

I'd be very critical of people who harbour the delusion that science might "crack" such a question. You wouldn't be one, would you ?

Edited March 29, 2016 by Habitat

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I'd be very critical of people who harbour the delusion that science might "crack" such a question. You wouldn't be one, would you ?

I would be very critical of people who harbour the delusion that there has to be a reason why the universe exists and then criticises science for not being able to answer non-scientific questions. That would be like criticising a lumberjack for not finding a cure for cancer.

You wouldn't be one, would you?

[Habitat]

I would be very critical of people who harbour the delusion that there has to be a reason why the universe exists and then criticises science for not being able to answer non-scientific questions. That would be like criticising a lumberjack for not finding a cure for cancer.

You wouldn't be one, would you?

You'd be 100% wrong if you thought that I propose "there has to be a reason why the universe exists". I say it is a question quite beyond reason, and consequently beyond science. Which is why some so-called scientists should quit using "authority" gained from scientific endeavour, to spout opinions on the matter. I'd take as much notice of your timber-getter, as those shonks !

Edited March 29, 2016 by Habitat

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Which scientists?

I have seen the argument for example, that science shows there is no need for a god, I have not seen the argument that science proves there is not one.

The first is a logical, scientific statement, the second is not. Which scientists are making the second case.

If we are talking about philosophical subjects, which are frequently dependent on opinion rather than facts anyway, who are you to say that scientists shouldn't be allowed to express theirs?

[Habitat]

Which scientists?

I have seen the argument for example, that science shows there is no need for a god, I have not seen the argument that science proves there is not one.

The first is a logical, scientific statement, the second is not. Which scientists are making the second case.

If we are talking about philosophical subjects, which are frequently dependent on opinion rather than facts anyway, who are you to say that scientists shouldn't be allowed to express theirs?

I have knocked up criticizing Dawkins and Hawking on this basis, particularly the latter. His masterpiece of populist guff being that God is unnecessary, because the "laws of physics" allows the universe to arise spontaneously. All that does is substitute "laws of physics" for "God", which has zero explanitory merit that I can see. These people are publishing whores.

[Habitat]

I have knocked up criticizing Dawkins and Hawking on this basis, particularly the latter. His masterpiece of populist guff being that God is unnecessary, because the "laws of physics" allows the universe to arise spontaneously. All that does is substitute "laws of physics" for "God", which has zero explanitory merit that I can see. These people are publishing whores. But who wants to beat-up some little guy stuck with a terrible disease, in a wheelchair ?

[Emma_Acid]

At CERN, at Cal-tech.

Do you have a reference for this?

for ever answer we get, we get 10 more questions.

Yep, that's how science works.

[Eldorado]

We know more than we did yesterday and we'll know more tomorrow.

[Peter B]

At CERN, at Cal-tech.

Thank you.

However, I see from CERN's website (https://jobs.web.cern.ch/content/appointment-conditions-professionals) that only one career path offers salaries which reach above $100,000 per annum (assuming $1 ~ 1 Swiss Franc).

And I see from https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-a-Caltech-physicist-earn that it's only the highest echelons of academia earning > $100,000.

By comparison, post-doctoral jobs at CSIRO are paying < $100,000, and that's Australian dollars, which are currently worth about 80 cents US: https://jobs.csiro.au/go/Postdoctoral-research-fellows/990000/

[barbco196]

Do you have a reference for this?

Yep, that's how science works.

https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-a-Caltech-physicist-earn

[JesseCuster]

It is a question that has been asked by the soberest people for millenia. Only a fool would believe science has anything to add in the matter.

I'd be very critical of people who harbour the delusion that science might "crack" such a question. You wouldn't be one, would you ?

So what if science can't answer that question? I really don't get what your point is.

[Emma_Acid]

https://www.quora.co...-physicist-earn

Thanks.

$100,000+ are the highest salaries though. That's like saying that because my CEO is on $900k, that graphic designers receive "fat paychecks". We don't. And the average researcher at Caltech is on $50k.

And to be honest, $100k is £60k - I don't know about where you are, but in London that's not that fat.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

Dark matter was always making me think of afterlife, as if completely new world, dimension is in it. We can't see it but perhaps our souls will be able to. Interesting to think about indeed.

Expansion of the space int he Universe

[LV-426]

Whatever we do know, and whatever we don't know, one thing history tells us of mankind is that we'll always believe ourselves to be smarter than we actually are.

I think we'll discover many things in the years to come, as long as we don't destroy ourselves first, but I don't think our tiny human brains have the capacity to grasp the "big picture."

I love the concept of a multiverse though. Somewhere there's another version of me out there with a cold beer in one hand and a hot date in the other. I can tell you... sadly, it isn't this dimension

[Habitat]

Whatever we do know, and whatever we don't know, one thing history tells us of mankind is that we'll always believe ourselves to be smarter than we actually are.

I think we'll discover many things in the years to come, as long as we don't destroy ourselves first, but I don't think our tiny human brains have the capacity to grasp the "big picture."

I love the concept of a multiverse though. Somewhere there's another version of me out there with a cold beer in one hand and a hot date in the other. I can tell you... sadly, it isn't this dimension

You have a hot beer and a cold date ? Commiserations my good man ! I do think what you say has merit, we humans individually and collectively do over-estimate our abilities to fathom the mystreies of life, but when you think about it, if you give up too easily, you certainly won't get there. Self-belief can be a key factor in success.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Habitat

[SHaYap]

Staring at our own noses ... is one of those Zen stories that comes to mind now ...