1 |
On Saturday, April 04, 2015 1:57:19 AM Alan McKinnon wrote: |
2 |
> On 03/04/2015 23:11, Fernando Rodriguez wrote: |
3 |
> > That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may never be |
4 |
able |
5 |
> > to answer is "why?". Take gravity as an example. We got really good models |
6 |
for |
7 |
> > it, we can predict how it influences even light with great accuracy but |
8 |
what |
9 |
> > are the underlying mechanisms? We may never know. Einstein would say it's |
10 |
> > because matter bends space, but what is the underlying mechanism for that? |
11 |
We |
12 |
> > just take his word for it because he gave us equations that work better |
13 |
than |
14 |
> > anything else we've come up with so far. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> |
17 |
> The scientific community is very well aware that it cannot answer the |
18 |
> question "why?", and in fact, true science doesn't even try. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Science never proves anything, it only fails to disprove a realistic |
21 |
> workable model. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> For the sake of simplicity and brevity we often says "according to |
24 |
> Einstein's theory matter bands space so therefore..." or even simplify |
25 |
> that to "matter bands space so therefore...", all the time understanding |
26 |
> that it's just a model, and could be totally wrong about the real |
27 |
> underlying truth. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> This is in no way a "problem" with science. It is by design. |
30 |
|
31 |
That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Should've read more like "If |
32 |
that's a problem with quantum physics then it's a problem with science in |
33 |
general..." |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Fernando Rodriguez |