/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11344118
OP here. As of yet, this is my second post counting the OP itself. There's no samefagging or anything on my part.

I believe that I'm genuinely stupid, but I can at least see that you're being arrogant right now. Unravel the arrogance into an explanation for me. Modern science has this funny notion of "understanding" a thing. It doesn't entail understanding the principles behind a concept, only describing the interactions of the concept as it acts.

It's been a loooong time since science has properly explained something. They limit themselves to only the descriptive realm, and that doesn't entail a single explanation or understanding of anything.

As a display of the uselessness of our current model, we're asking the same questions now as philosophers asked in the long past, but fooling ourselves into thinking that we're actually answering them. Then fooling ourselves into thinking that our theories are any different in value from theirs.

>Why does an apple fall to the ground?
"Aristotle said that objects fall because each of the four elements (earth, air, fire, and water) had their natural place, and these elements had a tendency to move back toward their natural place."

As you can notice, this is an attempt to understand the principles that cause things to fall to the ground. The core concept is "understanding". Next, the modern view.

>why does an apple fall to the ground?
Because of gravity.
>what is gravity?
The constant that things with mass attract each other.

What I'm trying to point out here, is that the modern answer, gravity, is just a description of how things fall. It's not an attempt to understand, but to describe it. And the theories that sprout from it are malleable, merely an imaginative effort in the same way as Aristotle's attempt.

Our theories are even sometimes outright wrong, such as when it comes to the spin of galaxy arms and gravity. Dark energy/matter is a theory to justify that fundamental mistake and nothing more.