It is a nasty tendency of modernity to assign infallibility to the sciences, in terms of the interests of those involved, their motives, and their discoveries. Very few people realize just how little, for example, we know of our universe on the smallest and largest of scales. Dark energy is not an affirmed scientific reality; it is an assumption designed to accommodate for causes which we cannot explain, i.e., the increasing acceleration of the universe. General relativity fails on certain scales, and is virtually incompatible with quantum physics. Particle physicists have concluded (on the basis of hypothetical phenomena that have not been demonstrated on scales sufficient to make any sort of valid conclusion) a self sustaining model of the multiverse that pends on one condition: The possibility of any sort of quantum fluctuation taking place within a zero pressure and zero potential fluid—an isolated cosmological vacuum of sorts—which is silliness, because even if we could demonstrate it it would not imply a self-sustaining model. Gravity continues to baffle particle physicists and theoretical physicists alike. Many of the modern quantum physicists of our day defer to Eastern Mysticism traditions as a basis for the plausibility of their discoveries (lol). There is an obvious underlying solution to the problem of such modern assumptions. The sciences never, in their conception, claimed to have access to truth. In fact, the modern sciences are not concerned with truth in any respect. Their goal is to understand certain things on the basis of certain undemonstrable assumptions (or, at the very least, assumptions which they never made any claim to be able to demonstrate): The things we are examining are knowable in some respect, and precision within a given measurement is possible. Upon these assumptions, the sciences are only as true (in their own right) as they are precise, and the sciences themselves have demonstrated that absolute certainty within our universe is not a possibility. Under these conditions, the very least that we can say of the sciences is that theyre useful. We cannot begin to affirm their truth value, even according to the standards by which they assign truth to a discovery (which they assume, and do not demonstrate—demonstration of a truth value assignable to the sciences belongs principally to theologists and philosophers).
Posted on: Sat, 17 May 2014 20:17:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015