The paradox of what is called a scientific fact: First of all science itself is build on facts that cannot be proven, but are only assumed. For example, how do we know that in the nucleus of a atom reside protons and neutrons? How do we know that neutrons are neutral (no charges)? We may answer that we dont really see inside a nucleus but we make that decision based on their behaviour. Then we can continue to ask how do we know the behaviour of a charged particle positive or negative or neutral is the way it is? All that we know of is based on assumptions, after assumptions, after assumptions. We believe the gravity acts that way because we observe its effects but we dont really know how gravity works, and we just make assumptions based on the effects that we see. So the shocking news is that we base all our logical conclusions not on what causes things but on their effects. Isnt this a paradox?
Posted on: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 10:57:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015