| 1 |
On 03/04/2015 23:11, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: |
| 2 |
> That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may never be able |
| 3 |
> to answer is "why?". Take gravity as an example. We got really good models for |
| 4 |
> it, we can predict how it influences even light with great accuracy but what |
| 5 |
> are the underlying mechanisms? We may never know. Einstein would say it's |
| 6 |
> because matter bends space, but what is the underlying mechanism for that? We |
| 7 |
> just take his word for it because he gave us equations that work better than |
| 8 |
> anything else we've come up with so far. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The scientific community is very well aware that it cannot answer the |
| 12 |
question "why?", and in fact, true science doesn't even try. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Science never proves anything, it only fails to disprove a realistic |
| 15 |
workable model. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
For the sake of simplicity and brevity we often says "according to |
| 18 |
Einstein's theory matter bands space so therefore..." or even simplify |
| 19 |
that to "matter bands space so therefore...", all the time understanding |
| 20 |
that it's just a model, and could be totally wrong about the real |
| 21 |
underlying truth. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
This is in no way a "problem" with science. It is by design. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 27 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives