OK, first off, I'm not denying science's value at all. I think science is extremely important. HOWEVER, i was talking to a friend and he said that he has lost some faith in science because its supposed to be answering the questions of the universe but almost always, science just leads us further down the rabbit hole, posing exponentially more questions every time it gets near an answer.

Obviously that is flawed because we can apply the incomplete knowledge we get and use it to improve ourselves, but what if the study of science is a bottomless pit and there is no final truth, doesn't that make it at least somewhat meaningless? How is the scenario im describing different from other bottomless pits like studying the decimal places of Pi or something similar.

Please keep it civil,

theBishop

You'll never find the answers.

Even if you think you have, it will only lead to further questions.

That's just the way it is.

science is simply methodology... it is the advocation of true diligence, reason, and responsibility when it comes to the acquisition and sharing of knowledge. as such, it is one of the most conscientious and comprehensive approaches man has yet devised for the goal of understanding. whether or not it holds the key to universal understanding in our lifetime is irrelevant, as it remains the champion of higher consciousness. in my opinion, only buddhism presents a challenge; but despite elements of sophisticated philosophy, even buddhism falls prey to many dogmatic contradictions and irregularities, where science does not.

science is not necessarily the key to THE ULTIMATE TRUTH... but it is closest to the Practice of Truth.

since when were all scientists in search for the ultimate truth? i doubt an oceanographer and an astronomer have the same goals in mind.

science is just pursuit of knowledge. any sort of knowledge. obviously it is "meaningless" if ur attempting to reach an end to knowledge. but no one is trying to do that so no, it is not meaningless.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

OK, first off, I'm not denying science's value at all. I think science is extremely important. HOWEVER, i was talking to a friend and he said that he has lost some faith in science because its supposed to be answering the questions of the universe but almost always, science just leads us further down the rabbit hole, posing exponentially more questions every time it gets near an answer.

Obviously that is flawed because we can apply the incomplete knowledge we get and use it to improve ourselves, but what if the study of science is a bottomless pit and there is no final truth, doesn't that make it at least somewhat meaningless? How is the scenario im describing different from other bottomless pits like studying the decimal places of Pi or something similar.

Please keep it civil,

theBishop

I, personally, think that science would get boring if we ever solved the mystery to the universe, although it would be exciting for a short while until researchers etc. realised that they had nothing to do. Science is only guess work any how, so yes it could all just be total bollocks. But seeing as our mathematical models and analogies seem to fit with observation we can say that they do the best to represent nature.

Science is answering the questions of the universe. Just not instantly. Sure, an ultimate truth would be right, but the main goal of Science is to explain what happens in the world around us, and to some degree, why.

quote:science just leads us further down the rabbit hole, posing exponentially more questions every time it gets near an answer.

Thats because sometimes when we're looking for the answer to soemthing we find something new about it. Should we stop exploring things because we don't get instant answers? That sounds pretty silly to me.

quote:Obviously that is flawed because we can apply the incomplete knowledge we get and use it to improve ourselves, but what if the study of science is a bottomless pit and there is no final truth, doesn't that make it at least somewhat meaningless?

And what if its not? You are simply speculating, and saying we should stop persuing answers because we may never find them. Once again, pretty silly.

quote:How is the scenario im describing different from other bottomless pits like studying the decimal places of Pi or something similar.

Its clear that you feel that if we don't get an answer to something very quickly we should stop stduying it because we'll never find the answers. Well, Im just glad the people of the past weren't this illogcial, otherwise we'd all still be living in log cabbins and crapping into pots that sit under our beds.

If you want instant answers you're going to be very disappointed in life. Do you think the universe is honestly so simple that we should be able to come up with answers regarding its origin within a matter of days?

Also, not all scientists are searchign for a 'final truth'. Chen pointed this out. Sure, some physicists may be trying to develope a unified theory and some astro-physicists may be trying to discover the origin of the universe, but that doesn't mean every branch of science is searching for these things. The people sitting in labs right now trying to come up with an AIDS vaccine probably couldn't care less where the hell we came from right now, they've got other priorities.

Be careful Sen. I'm not arguing against science i just wanted to see what you guys thought about somethign my friend and i were talking about. I'm most certainly not saying we should stop looking for answers. The question i'm posing is this:

what if the universe is set up in such a way that the more you learn about it the less you know.

Then thats how its setup. If that is how its setup we'll never actually know, all we'll know is that we've studied it for X amount of years and haven't found the answers we are looking for, but we won't be able to tell whether or not we'll find them in the future.

And Im sorry but your original post does seem a bit against science! Despite the opening sentence.

[This message has been edited by SEN D-F (edited 02-19-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

what if the universe is set up in such a way that the more you learn about it the less you know.

Then we're still a lot better off with hygeine and satellite TV than we were 300 years ago.

i believe knowledge and the acquisition thereof is part of a meta-function, the purpose of which is to imprint memory. ignorance is its opposite, part of a metafunction designed to supress memory... therefore, to be in a state of ignorance is to live an emotional existence whose purpose is to be anything but noteworthy... the point of inferior understanding is to be forgotten. the opposite is true for states of understanding. in the grand scheme of things, those with the confidence that comes from righteous questioning and problem-solving become immortalized in the spiritual concourse of events. those who ignore the currents of existential energy contribute only to its early dissolution.

science doesn't always give you the answer you want, thats why so many people go into pseudoscience. Science is just a methodology to test out theories, u try out the theory until it doesn't work then u adjust the thoery. we ARE getting closer to absolute theories, sorry if they are not the ones you'd like