Science !!!!!What is the limitation??

[fire]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Hi,
Are we maintaining a soft corner approach to scientific arguments?? Are we accepting science as it is without questioning it? Are we science belivers rather than people who know science well?

I have a basic doubt.You also might have heard it. Science ,Math are based on assumptions and if we question it again and again we will reach a point where we have to say 'it'snature' . Does science only believe what we can see & experiment??

Are science rules applicable to any time ( lakhs of years past or lakhs of years in future)?? Or do we have the possibility of different rules at diff part of time....Or we giving explanations to what we are experiencing?? Say gravitation....Does science prove that crores of years ago gravitation existed as it existed today??

Or do we limit ourselves to give explanations of present alone?? Or are we assuming that nature rules wont change??Or is it proven idea?

One of my colleagues asked 'why dont we have a living creature in a planet without breathing and water?How can you say in a planet if there is no water there is no life ( may be they believe if in a planet like earth ,Earth like situation must be thr for life existence)'.....

Are we accepting science as it is ,just because we have so many utilities gifted by scientific knowledge (Just like investing in a gud company's stock without worrying about their balance sheet)??

 

[new_tbguy]

Dear Fire
when you say "its Nature" understanding Nature is science ... so I am not sure where you pulled that From

 

[tech_rsr]

Axioms are indivisible observations on which deductive logic, such as science are based. Axioms can be observed and as you rightly point out, axioms cannot all be known. This is what makes scientific pursuits a continuous quest.

There are theories to explain the very beginning of the universe, based on scientific observations. Gravitation is one of the weak forces of nature (the strong forces being the electromagnetic and nuclear forces). Gravitational attraction depends on the masses of the bodies under consideration.

The question on biological life as we know it - the answer is that as long as we are limited to observing living species on earth, which has a specific chemistry, we only know of one way in which life can germinate. However, if you examine the extreme conditions in which life does exist on earth - such as in hot springs under the water where the temperature reaches 400 F, or in Antarctica, where the temperatures are of the order of -60 F, one can see scope for life on other worlds, which forms using the same chemistry.

Even on earth, there is a chance that life could have taken alternative routes. There have been cycles of extinctions of creatures on earth - the earth is four billion years old, and humans as we know them are only 2 million years old, a fraction of the earth's lifetime. Modern humans form a smaller piece of the pie still, having existed for around 40,000 years without significant genetic changes.

Scientists at NASA's JPL often speculate about the other forms of life that may exist. Carbon and Silicon are two elements which are capable of forming long chains of molecules - a necessary feature for forming complex compounds. Like carbon based life forms on earth, there could possibly be planets with silicon-based life. There are probably also definitions of consciousness and intelligence we are not even familiar with, and all this makes science more interesting and never less interesting.

Our knowledge about the universe has expanded only in the 20th century, while for millennia, we have had astronomers in Greece, India and Egypt observing the stars.

Science's success in explaining physical phenomena is indeed attributable to the rigorous questioning that is very part of the method of science itself. It is possible that all scientists take care to make careful, calculated conjectures about the nature of the world. However, it can be said that with each mistake, we uncover something about the world or ourselves that we didn't know in the past.

Hi,
Are we maintaining a soft corner approach to scientific arguments?? Are we accepting science as it is without questioning it? Are we science belivers rather than people who know science well?

I have a basic doubt.You also might have heard it. Science ,Math are based on assumptions and if we question it again and again we will reach a point where we have to say 'it'snature' . Does science only believe what we can see & experiment??

Are science rules applicable to any time ( lakhs of years past or lakhs of years in future)?? Or do we have the possibility of different rules at diff part of time....Or we giving explanations to what we are experiencing?? Say gravitation....Does science prove that crores of years ago gravitation existed as it existed today??

Or do we limit ourselves to give explanations of present alone?? Or are we assuming that nature rules wont change??Or is it proven idea?

One of my colleagues asked 'why dont we have a living creature in a planet without breathing and water?How can you say in a planet if there is no water there is no life ( may be they believe if in a planet like earth ,Earth like situation must be thr for life existence)'.....

Are we accepting science as it is ,just because we have so many utilities gifted by scientific knowledge (Just like investing in a gud company's stock without worrying about their balance sheet)??