The late Steven Hawking was one of the smartest people in the field of physics. In more than one interview he repeated that at a time and distance far away our laws of science are no longer accurate. From him I will believe such a statement. From most others on planet earth who have their own Facebook page I have to politely disqualify.

I agree that science is limited by observation and knowledge, but that's more of its intention than a flaw. Science was developed as a method for researching and evaluating claims about reality through existing evidence, testing, and observing, repeatedly. Mathematics and logic have the same limits where they rely on prior assumptions and information from within the system and can't be expected to infer outside the system without outside information entering the system first. All knowledge is like that.

If no information crosses the boundary, then every way to analyze the world faces the same barrier. For a message that gets received into a closed system, we can only evaluate and confirm the instance of us having received it, so it then becomes treated as a part of our system, where math, science, and logic can be equally applied as well as intuition, philosophy, or theology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by donc

The late Steven Hawking was one of the smartest people in the field of physics. In more than one interview he repeated that at a time and distance far away our laws of science are no longer accurate. From him I will believe such a statement. From most others on planet earth who have their own Facebook page I have to politely disqualify.

---

I read such an article a few years ago. The author said that with data gathered from various radio telescopes and probes sent out decades ago we can saffely say that at about 70mil light years out our laws of physics may not apply.

All I have is what I think..
N..I think ..
Science is good but..
Not the ..All...

I agree with the premise, but what is the alternative? At least with science there is some semblance of consistency. Without it, there's just random and unfounded speculation.

Your argument depends on an unproven premise: that there is something outside the domain accessible to science.

We tend to populate the unknown with the biases we inherit.

we have gone too strong into thinking that--a 4th dimension is time--

I am going to go metaphoric - energy is fed to matter through unknown channels --like the line into a carburetor --the size of the line is the speed of light--the closer energy exchange gets to the speed of light --the viscosity thickens in a set ratio--all attempts at energy exchange are slowed down-- any electric exchange-any thought process--any clock of any kind--any exchange of energy is slowed down--time is not dilated--the clock and people thinking both slowed down==we need to get back to Newtonian and start over --but of course all of good things we have - that help us understand and live--these are keepers also--

Too deep for me …..

https://youtu.be/REWeBzGuzCc?si=ObAoVzdOPMjgEVD1

We should not trust science.  Science isn't about "trust".  

Science is about producing hypotheses which can be verified or nullified through experimentation.  The results of these experiments should not be trusted, but subjected to repeated testing by others.  The instant "trust" enters the picture, we are no longer talking about science.  Science is an activity conducted by humans (at least until this point in history) and humans make mistakes.

I think a good example to look at is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge which was a product of human science and engineering.  If we think of the people who used that bridge daily, were they trusting science?  I would say No.  The vast majority of the people who crossed that bridge and the bridges that were built in its place knew next to nothing about the science employed to design and build the bridge.  They were simply trusting their own experience with similar man made structures.

In the case of the first bridge which collapsed in a windstorm less than a year after its completion, the science was faulty.  

Millions of people have subsequently crossed the bridge that was built in its place.  How many of them understood the science involved in its design and construction?  How about the third bridge that now stands beside it?  The design is different.  Did the science change?  Which science should you trust?

I say I trust neither.  I use the bridge without fear based on my experience with bridges and other man made structures.  If  I "trust" anything it is the repeated experience of utilizing large man made structures with success.

It kinda sounds like splitting hairs, but SCIENCE is just a process.  It is not a thing that can be trusted or distrusted.  Placing trust in science is what leads to scientism which is the belief that nothing can be known without science.  It seems to me that science has been deified and placed on a pedestal in modern culture to the point that science-worship has become detrimental to science.

One need not look too far back into recent history to find egregious examples of "trusting science" and the resulting debacles that are still unfolding as a result of that misplaced trust.

The real question in my opinion is Who / what do you trust?

Of course, this question leads to gray areas between science, philosophy and religion where we are almost certain to violate multiple rules of this site.

That might be a good thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zojo

Your argument depends on an unproven premise: that there is something outside the domain accessible to science.

We tend to populate the unknown with the biases we inherit.

---

Well said in few words. I choose to believe in the scientific method. 

“Fools rush in” (I borrowed that ;-) where there is a vacuum of knowledge

I wonder about the use of "only" in the title .... is it an "all-or-nothing" question?

Franklin: "...  in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."

Folks, I know for fact that y'all and myself know stuff now that not too long ago was considered magic or not even imagined at all. I mean just within the last couple years. Some stuff I don't even want to know.

There's interpolation and extrapolation, of what happens inside our system and what we can observe outside, to best understand what is outside our closed system.

It ain't perfect, but it's the best we can do.

I am probably a fool in many places but I don't figure I am one here--I could go deeper with my reasons but have things to fix-that i did yesterday that are filed under d2@#$ foolish

There’s a difference between blind faith and trust. There are objective truths and observable constants when it comes to science and mathematics. When it comes to philosophy, that’s a paradigm that when employed without deference to science is simply an unimaginable morass.

I simply avoid things that require ignoring the objective truths - whether it be the various gods, mysticisms, cultural beliefs, or even government philosophies.


Humans are blessed with ability to give meaning to the universe, we are also cursed with the need to give meaning to the universe.

We are simply the culmination of objectives truths that we have not discovered and most likely won’t last long enough to do so.

I see reasoning as being based in proven truths of science.
Science has proven outcomes derived from trial and error.
Finding the truth proves the science.
Opinion isn't proof.

The scientific method is designed to reduce cognitive biases.

Jon B. nailed it. Science is just a process. It helps us make order out of where we live and helps us to live better in it. However, as we as people are limited, so is and always will be the answers science can give. It is a very very useful thing. There are things outside it.
Ken