/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14594198
>SCIENCE! open questions
Right. I think just because of the material success of physics, a lot of people grant it far more certainty and long-term viability as the Ultimate Truth Teller than reason would dictate.
It's a phase of Western (now mostly global) thought that has lasted about 500 years and produced some profound gains, but also one that has massive holes in it with uncertainty as to whether it can close them, either due to technical limitations or basic epistemological inability.
We stuck with Greek thought and its natural truths for 2000 years before some new thing came about and knocked it down. We all assume the new thing, which is our thing, will last indefinitely, and is the most powerful thing that could ever come around.
History scoffs at such arrogant permanence.
The next thing will remain a mystery until it shows up and starts providing clear gains over the current thing.

I severely doubt a bunch of upjumped monkeys just managed to figure it all out in the Renaissance, and now it's a matter of iterating that for a few more centuries.
>>14594258
>Science can describe events micro-seconds following the Big Bang
It claims to. Its description might change radically in ten years when a new model comes out. I would be wary of assigning too much a sense of permanence to things that we're taking almost on a priori modeling so long as it aligns with observations. Better observations, or alterations in the underlying model (which is currently flawed, see dark energy as a very appropriate example), will change whatever scientists claim about such distant moments.

Not saying that to trip you up, but rather underscore the point that it remains totally unclear whether science is reliable enough to solve all our intellectual questions, including the most difficult one of mind-body, or whether it will require a new system of inquiry, perhaps one that monkeybrains cannot fathom.