Will science eventually explain everything?

Just what it says in the title: Will science have all the answers eventually?

Compared to what we thought we knew about the universe just 100 years ago we've made monumental leaps forward in our understanding, but will that continue? Are we going to plateau in our level of understanding? Are some things beyond understanding?

Aha. Reading the title my first line was going to be "Do you mean everything or all the questions?" ;)

I believe that science will never run out of questions to ask, and therefore never truly discover/understand everything. As our perception of the world increases we naturally look further out, or consider things in more detail. We've already seen it happen with things like cells, atoms, quarks, etc. - scientists not stopping at one stage but delving deeper.

That's avoiding the 'unanswerable' questions. Will science ever be able to disprove God? Will we be able to bottle up love potions? Could we develop technology that will scatter the atoms of a person and reform them perfectly - memories intact? Those kind of questions seem impossible at the moment - but maybe in the future they will become more viable, and by then they'll have even wackier questions to answer.

Probably haha. I see science as the process of finding answers, and as such asking whether science will have the answers would be asking will we as humanity have all the answers.

I think humanity to a large degree already knows how the world works, at least in ways most relevant to us. We know more or less whatever we "need" to know, and as a result it's going to seem like we plateau in our understanding. The future will be in applied sciences - engineering and technology - building upon the natural world in order to shape our destiny.

I don't think science is that relevant in a way, to be honest. Now that I think about it, it's the application of what we know that counts. Knowledge doesn't do anything by itself, it needs power and resources and ideas to change the world.

no

simply because human error :I

Science inherently has one fatal flaw: Perception. Everything is perceived differently by everyone. Even if the majority of humanity perceives an event in one way, there will be atleast one person that perceives it another way. This is already a proper concept in Physics and, thus, states that nothing can ever be 100% proven.

Science may very well have answers for everything - but they will never be 100% correct.

I think the more accurate question is:

Can mankind learn or understand everything, given enough time to do so? I'm not so sure, mankind is flawed. But the science itself is not flawed, if you get what I'm saying. Only our perception and interpretation can be.

Livewire said:

I think the more accurate question is:

Can mankind learn or understand everything, given enough time to do so? I'm not so sure, mankind is flawed. But the science itself is not flawed, if you get what I'm saying. Only our perception and interpretation can be.

Click to expand...

How can science not be flawed if it was created by humans? That makes no sense.

Rezilia said:

How can science not be flawed if it was created by humans? That makes no sense.

Click to expand...

We didn't create it, we learned it. Mathematics, physics, etc., are a fundamental language of the universe, explaining how things work. We merely discovered how to learn the language, we didn't just make it all up one day. Like you said, our perception is what can be flawed.

No, WE created science. WE created mathematics. So you're telling me the universe just divined Pythagoras his oh-so-famous theorem? No, it didn't.

The universe didn't tell us protons and electrons existed. We THEORIZED their existence, with OUR OWN naming system, based on sending lasers at golden foil.

Science is a human construct. The birds and the trees exist, we exist, rivers and mountains exist, stars and galaxies exist - all exist due to the universe. But our way of DEFINING these things - Science - is a HUMAN CONSTRUCT. Thus, it is imperfect. Period.

Rezilia said:

Science is a human construct. The birds and the trees exist, we exist, rivers and mountains exist, stars and galaxies exist - all exist due to the universe. But our way of DEFINING these things - Science - is a HUMAN CONSTRUCT. Thus, it is imperfect. Period.

Click to expand...

While that's true that science is a human construct subject to human error, it's an oversimplification to take its imperfection the wrong way. It actively seeks to understand the world, and as a result, fixes itself when it finds a better understanding of the world. Even if we cannot understand all there is to understand in the universe, our knowledge and understanding should grow exponentially in absolute, and asymptotically in relation to "everything there is to know" :P

That's true, and I agree with that definition of Science, but like I've said before: those "in control of" the scientific community don't uphold that belief. They deem science as 100% correct and if an old theory, like Newton's theories or the Big Bang, are ever "disproven" in respect to a better theory, they ignore that new theory and uphold the old one.

So, in that way, science is being failed by its own community. It's unfortunate, but true. And as long as this is the case, science will never explore every crease and corner. Correct or not, it has the chance to touch everything - and its community refuses to let it do just that. This was the problem Einstein faced. Unfortunately, no one listened to him and the sci community is still ignorant.

Rezilia said:

No, WE created science. WE created mathematics. So you're telling me the universe just divined Pythagoras his oh-so-famous theorem? No, it didn't.

The universe didn't tell us protons and electrons existed. We THEORIZED their existence, with OUR OWN naming system, based on sending lasers at golden foil.

Science is a human construct. The birds and the trees exist, we exist, rivers and mountains exist, stars and galaxies exist - all exist due to the universe. But our way of DEFINING these things - Science - is a HUMAN CONSTRUCT. Thus, it is imperfect. Period.

Click to expand...

You're not getting it. To use your example, the mathematics and such that prove the Pythagorean theorem, A₂ + B₂ = C₂ was a thing before we named it. Pythagoras named the theorem, recognized the math behind it, but he didn't invent the mathematical forces behind it. He invented the way in which we interpreted it.

Think of it like digging up a fossil. It's all there, underground, all it needs is for somebody to come dig it all up. An archeologist/paleontologist pulls up one bone, and another, and another, trying to figure out what they have in front of them, until they know just what kind of fossil they have by putting together all the pieces. But the archeologist didn't put the bones there or create the animal.

No, that's wrong. Pythagoras didn't interpret it. He CREATED it - which you would know, if you actually researched HIM.

Nearly everything we do in concerns to numbers was invented because of him - his work created mathematics as we know it, it created numerology, it created literally everything that has to do with the way we use numbers.

Mathematics is NOT a language determined by the universe. WE created mathematics as a MEDIUM to understand the universe. It is not the universal language and it NEVER WAS. It's a language we created.

By your idea, English MUST be the one language of mankind. After all, the universe designed communication to work in a way where we'd be able to learn how to communicate "properly" - as in, English.

Mathematics is NOT the language of the universe. It is one of many languages we've created over time to fit a specific discipline. It has flaws just like every other version of mathematics has had flaws. The Egyptians didn't use our method. The Vikings didn't use our method. They used their own mathematical languages and just like how those WORKED but were not PERFECT - ours WORKS yet is not PERFECT either.

The "mathematical forces" you speak of - where are they? I want you to literally scrape away every inch of our mathematical language and then show me exactly what you're talking about. If you mean the nature of the universe, you're getting into philosophy. For someone that focuses so much on mathematical and scientific "proof" and your "logic by proof", that's going a bit far, don't you think?

Rezilia said:

That's true, and I agree with that definition of Science, but like I've said before: those "in control of" the scientific community don't uphold that belief. They deem science as 100% correct and if an old theory, like Newton's theories or the Big Bang, are ever "disproven" in respect to a better theory, they ignore that new theory and uphold the old one.

So, in that way, science is being failed by its own community. It's unfortunate, but true. And as long as this is the case, science will never explore every crease and corner. Correct or not, it has the chance to touch everything - and its community refuses to let it do just that. This was the problem Einstein faced. Unfortunately, no one listened to him and the sci community is still ignorant.

Click to expand...

This isn't true at all. Nobody's in control of the scientific community. I'm a part of it, my professors are part of it, and so are all the researchers and students all around the world. I am taught the same worldview as they hold true to their work. Science can be conservative, because people's egos are at stake as well as it being applied and rooted in society, but there are also paradigm shifts in which the community arrives at a new consensus. And quite often these paradigm shifts are groundbreaking. But why do they occur? Because of evidence. The thing about the scientific community is that it actually responds to new evidence. Perhaps it takes time, for example with Darwin's theory of evolution - acceptance took decades - but with the discovery of genetics and then DNA, everything just clicked together.

And science will always explore every crease and corner - because there's absolutely no point doing work that somebody else has already done. Your thesis - your exploration - has to be novel and relevant for it to matter. I don't know why you have this perception of how the scientific community works, because it's inaccurate. Science is as much disproving some other guy's work as it is proving your own work, I can tell you that much :P

Baron Carl von Reichenbach - he's taught about in some schools in and around Germany. He came up with a fully working theory, with proper evidence, which explains more about the Aurora and even Auras and how they are related.

Now, present his idea to someone with a PhD. I dare you. See what they say.

Science will not discover every nook and cranny because those at the top of the community - normally those with PhDs and professors, not actual going-everywhere-to-discover-the-world theoretical physicists -refuse to look into ANYTHING that even SOUNDS like "mysticism", according to them. And then, you have those - even with PhDs - that are discredited by such scientists just because they are trying to research things like cryptids (such as Dr. Anna Nekaris because of her affiliation with Bigfoot studies). As long as ignorants are able to discredit and so-called-but-not-really-disprove these "radical theories", science will never work fully.

Rezilia said:

Baron Carl von Reichenbach - he's taught about in some schools in and around Germany. He came up with a fully working theory, with proper evidence, which explains more about the Aurora and even Auras and how they are related.

Now, present his idea to someone with a PhD. I dare you. See what they say.

Science will not discover every nook and cranny because those at the top of the community - normally those with PhDs and professors, not actual going-everywhere-to-discover-the-world theoretical physicists -refuse to look into ANYTHING that even SOUNDS like "mysticism", according to them. And then, you have those - even with PhDs - that are discredited by such scientists just because they are trying to research things like cryptids (such as Dr. Anna Nekaris because of her affiliation with Bigfoot studies). As long as ignorants are able to discredit and so-called-but-not-really-disprove these "radical theories", science will never work fully.

Click to expand...

Can you give us more than a shoutout next time? I'm not familiar with his work, nor will I find a detailed report on his ideas through google easily. Also, people get blamed by association since the evidence is hardly ever, well, good. I can give my personal assessment of what these people are working with if you want, but it's most likely not very scientific work to begin with.

Rezilia said:

No, that's wrong. Pythagoras didn't interpret it. He CREATED it - which you would know, if you actually researched HIM.

Nearly everything we do in concerns to numbers was invented because of him - his work created mathematics as we know it, it created numerology, it created literally everything that has to do with the way we use numbers.

Mathematics is NOT a language determined by the universe. WE created mathematics as a MEDIUM to understand the universe. It is not the universal language and it NEVER WAS. It's a language we created.

By your idea, English MUST be the one language of mankind. After all, the universe designed communication to work in a way where we'd be able to learn how to communicate "properly" - as in, English.

Mathematics is NOT the language of the universe. It is one of many languages we've created over time to fit a specific discipline. It has flaws just like every other version of mathematics has had flaws. The Egyptians didn't use our method. The Vikings didn't use our method. They used their own mathematical languages and just like how those WORKED but were not PERFECT - ours WORKS yet is not PERFECT either.

The "mathematical forces" you speak of - where are they? I want you to literally scrape away every inch of our mathematical language and then show me exactly what you're talking about. If you mean the nature of the universe, you're getting into philosophy. For someone that focuses so much on mathematical and scientific "proof" and your "logic by proof", that's going a bit far, don't you think?

Click to expand...

Why you keep refusing to see the logic here is beyond me, but I digress. Again, you don't seem to understand the very basic concept that there are fundamental, universal truths when it comes to physics, etc, that we have codified and wrought into a language designed to express and prove those truths - mathematics. Languages are a system of words, words are a symbol for something else, in this case, scientific truths. We discover and try to explain these truths using mathematics and logic, the scientific method, etc., - that language of the universe that we use to convey those truths.

That is only a concept, as I've stated before, and has no "scientific basis" - it's just self-glorification that many scientists use to make themselves think that they're fully defining the universe. They're attempting to, very very weakly, wherein the majority of our findings were through accidents - not by following the language to the nearest detail.

Do remember that the majority of science was originally qualitative, not quantitative. And we did fine enough before the 1900s, when numbers became the bane of thought.

--

Actually, yes, you can get a thorough report by searching Google. You should find a book in the results - which will show you all of his records. That is, if you can read the original language >.> Otherwise, you'll need to find a translated version...

But yes. Google. It has everything.

And yes, it is scientific in nature. It uses the scientific method, literally all-throughout. Reichenbach took hundreds of people throughout Europe and experimented on them, using every process required by his discipline at the time. His books were bestsellers worldwide due to their thorough use of proper logic, reasoning, and attention to detail. Then some scientists at the head of universities at the time heard wind of his theory, they had something up their butts - as usual - since his theory was not what they were used to, and they spread around the idea to everyone that they "disproved" it even though they had no evidence at all, whatsoever, against it.

Anna Nekaris is an absolute expert on primates of every kind throughout the world and has spent her life researching everything about them. Her findings in regards to Bigfoot are based completely on biological scientific reasoning, geological findings, and relations between certain events to others - all based on scientific methods of reasoning.

Reichenbach discovered a force called Odyle which is in a trinity with Electricity and Magnetism. It is, thus, electromagnodic force, not electromagnetic force. Odyle is the reason why specific colors exist in certain areas whenever there is a sufficient enough electricity and magnetism. The Aurora's colors exist when certain chemical elements interact with others, apparently, but this doesn't explain WHY certain interactions create certain colors and not others. The Aura is a way of looking at a person's EMF - a concept which is deemed valid - just by the way of seeing Odyle instead of electricity...or nothing at all. Being able to see odyle, as he said, is simply a matter of whether or not you are born with the ability. It is simply something allowed by your eyes - many people can see odyle better than others. We can all see the Aurora, for example, because electromagnetism is strongest at the poles. Seeing Auras is a bit harder, requiring better natural ability to see odyle.

It is unknown what all odyle is meant to do, just as it is unknown what bigfoot's proper composition is. But as long as people count these concepts as invalid, they won't be properly studied.

--

But don't think I'm just going on a rant about those two alone. They are amongst millions of concepts, thousands of which are tried and true by scientific standards, which have simply been discredited by an ignorant population of the sci community, which have always happened to have enough support to discredit anything, even without evidence against those things.

Well, in the case for Von Reichenbach, apparently he couldn't see any of the phenomena himself. He only recorded what "sensitives" claimed to see. If we can't measure it objectively, then we can't really do much with it - it's relying completely on perception, and we simply can't make heads or tales out of it.

And yet, because YOU can't see it, it automatically doesn't exist?

^ See, that's where I'm getting at here. If he told everyone he could see it too, they'd think he was pulling it out of his behind. EVEN THOUGH he couldn't see it, he found evidence for its existence. And then sought to research it, through which he obtained results, which covered every base at the time.

Back then, everything was qualitative...everything. He very well may have researched it quantitatively, if that was enough of a thing back then to fit properly into his discipline. It wasn't. So going against him because it wasn't "quantitative" is absolute BS, esp. considering that's how the sci community did things back then. That is, qualitatively. Through observation by the senses...only.

In fact, nearly all of Biology is qualitative in nature. I guess that means we should destroy the practice, since it uses the senses.