/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6021132

>1) The world has a structure and follows a set of rules, it's behaviour is not random nor chaotic (well, in general).
I see it as a dangerous assumption to have. If we assume ourselves capable of acquiring knowledge of said rules and using them, than we can manipulate universe as we see fit or interpret certain events in this light of this knowledge. But we do „assume“that there are such rules and we do „assume“that we do know or are capable of knowing these rules and it follows that we will use this knowledge in ways we will see fit. Yet what if we are wrong? I mean scientism aims to envelopes and explain every aspect of our existence and if we can explain we can change or at least we have a certain power over things that we understand, but what if its only an appearance of understanding?
>2) We as human beings are capable of learning all the secrets of the universe, there's no sacred, hidden, "not-ment for mortals" knowledge out there by default.
Again seems like a dangerous assumption especially if we take into account that science is being used as a tool and aim for actively changing man - his body and mind, his society and his understanding of the universe.
A metaphor for this would be:
like a fool with courage and a beating stick - he can and he will do things his own way because he knows only “can” and forgets his “should or not”