/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5885992]

hey /sci/,

I was wondering how some of you feel about this age's disposition of "we can learn everything about the universe through science". I feel this is very prevalent today, especially among youths. Do people understand that human knowledge has a limit? That theres things about the universe we can just not possibly ever know? In other times, they felt they knew all the workings of the universe, but today we scoff at their arrogance and lack of knowledge. Is today's science any different?

tldr; There are more things in heaven and earth, /sci/, than are dreamt of in your science.

[Anonymous No.5886002]

>heaven
Reported for religion vs science thread, gtfo and take your fairytale beliefs to >>>/x/ where you will be among minds of a similarly low caliber as yours.

[Anonymous No.5886003]

its the journey, not the destination. known "unknown's" don't bother scientists as much as you think.

[Anonymous No.5886005]

>There are more things in heaven and earth, /sci/, than are dreamt of in your science.

No, there are not.

[Anonymous No.5886009]

>things about the universe we can just not possibly ever know

[Anonymous No.5886016]

>>5886002
c'mon man, you know what I meant. Heaven = space, celestial bodies = planets, etc.

[Anonymous No.5886017]

>>5886005
we only have five senses for empiracal evidence. How can we prove things that can't be studied with one of our senses?

[Anonymous No.5886023]

>>5886017
*empirical* obviously

[Anonymous No.5886027]

>>5886009
Science is a branch of philosophy. Funny thing about that cartoon is 'cogito ergo sum' by Descartes was basically the catalyst for the creation of scientific thought.

Don't forget your roots, my friend.

[Anonymous No.5886029]

>>5886017
No such things exist.

[Anonymous No.5886030]

>>5886027
>Science is a branch of philosophy.
Science is the opposite of philosophy. Science explains things and finds answers while philosophy insists in "u cannot know nuthin".

>'cogito ergo sum' by Descartes was basically the catalyst for the creation of scientific thought.
No, it wasn't and it is a highly unscientific statement.

[Anonymous No.5886034]

>>5886029
aaaand theres the scientific arrogance. So why cant we hear radio waves with our naked ears? Or see infrared waves with our eyes? Because we dont have the proper senses for them.

[Anonymous No.5886077]

>>5886030
You seem terribly uninformed. While I agree with you, you cannot expect that to be sufficient for an argument...

[Anonymous No.5886086]

>>5885992
>Do people understand that human knowledge has a limit? That theres things about the universe we can just not possibly ever know?
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.5886091]

>>5886027
>cogito ergo sum' by Descartes was basically the catalyst for the creation of scientific thought.
what? no it wasn't

also what the fuck are you doing here, you obviously don't belong, banned from /x/ or something?

[Anonymous No.5886094]

So nobody has anything substantial to argue? Just saying "you're wrong" isn't convincing in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.5886101]

>>5886094
No one is trying to convince you, no one cares because everyone is very aware that you are a complete idiot and it is a wasted effort to educate the likes of you, we stopped trying a long time ago.

People posting here are only here to insult you.

[Anonymous No.5886103]

>>5886091
I just thought I'd do my duty of telling you all what you don't want to hear. Constant reinforcement can lead to delusion.

[Anonymous No.5886109]

>>5886103
>Constant reinforcement can lead to delusion.
hence /x/

[Anonymous No.5886128]

>>5886109
Not from /x/ man. I browse /lit/, /sci/, /out/, and /ic/. Why do you do this to yourself? You won't have any epiphanies with a closed mind.

>It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.