Omniscience?

[Husar]

Well, for starters a lot of science works with models and models only represent certain aspects of reality that are useful for a given purpose.
Without being false or wrong, a model does not show you the full extent of "the truth" if there is such a thing.

For example we can describe all sorts of attributes of electromagnetic waves, but we cannot see the waves themselves, you cannot go and watch a magnetic field, you cannot touch and feel it, you cannot hear it etc., you can only study what it does to other things and how other things react to it etc. and then build a model around this.
And then even if you could sense it somehow, everything we sense is just an interpretation of our brain, certain stimuli that our brain receives and interpretes in a certain way, a bat for example "sees"/senses the world in a different way and has no problems with orientation in pitch black darkness where we are completely lost because our most important senses are "knocked out".
So everything science "proves" is only "proven" in relation to our perception of the world, it's possible that there are waves or whatever flying around the air and space that we will never discover and as such it's doubtful that science will ever "prove" everything.
And that's apart from what others said about science not proving anything in the first place.
I think science is more a way of us exploring our surroundings with the goal of manipulating them for our purposes and for that it is rather effective, so the goal is not to find some universal truth and prove it but to gain sufficient knowledge to attain certain goals that we have for ourselves, be it the survival of our race or just earning more money.

Just my thoughts for now.

[The Stranger]

Well, for starters a lot of science works with models and models only represent certain aspects of reality that are useful for a given purpose.
Without being false or wrong, a model does not show you the full extent of "the truth" if there is such a thing.

For example we can describe all sorts of attributes of electromagnetic waves, but we cannot see the waves themselves, you cannot go and watch a magnetic field, you cannot touch and feel it, you cannot hear it etc., you can only study what it does to other things and how other things react to it etc. and then build a model around this.
And then even if you could sense it somehow, everything we sense is just an interpretation of our brain, certain stimuli that our brain receives and interpretes in a certain way, a bat for example "sees"/senses the world in a different way and has no problems with orientation in pitch black darkness where we are completely lost because our most important senses are "knocked out".
So everything science "proves" is only "proven" in relation to our perception of the world, it's possible that there are waves or whatever flying around the air and space that we will never discover and as such it's doubtful that science will ever "prove" everything.
And that's apart from what others said about science not proving anything in the first place.
I think science is more a way of us exploring our surroundings with the goal of manipulating them for our purposes and for that it is rather effective, so the goal is not to find some universal truth and prove it but to gain sufficient knowledge to attain certain goals that we have for ourselves, be it the survival of our race or just earning more money.

Just my thoughts for now.

some good thoughts i would say.

anyway

Where begins a circle?

A. Proof requires truth, truth requires, belief, belief requires faith, faith can exist without all of the above, therefore it is not provable.
B. Infinite knowledge requires infinite time. Since demonstrates that time has a beginning and implies an end. That means that time is too short for the stated goal.
C. what ever is, is and what ever is not also is.

D. Take it away Jack!

A) i agree.
B) Who is talking about infinite knowlegde? Whether knowledge is finite or infinite, this point is irrelevant to the OP.
C) this is also debatable. The logicians of atomism per example would not agree and argue that what is not is a grammatical effect.
D) i cant help but feel that you fall in the 2nd category of your sig as well ;) but then again dont we all?

[phonicsmonkey]

The problem arises when we try to use induction to project the likelihood of future events.

The well-used example is that of a turkey in the six months leading up to christmas. Each day he is presented with evidence to support and strengthen his theory that human beings are benevolent and interested in his continuing welfare...until one day.

So while several posters who have made the point that science has great pragmatic value, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that some times it does not and in fact can be damaging if wrong conclusions are drawn from evidence.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, stock market prediction isn't science that's for sure, even if they give nobel prizes to people.

[The Stranger]

tell that to a stockbroker.

[Sigurd]

Erasmus Montanus comes to mind...

[The Stranger]

i dont really see how it does. i kinda see though XD i havent read it so cant really tell.

[phonicsmonkey]

Well, stock market prediction isn't science that's for sure, even if they give nobel prizes to people.

True dat - have you read Nicholas Nassim Taleb on this topic?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

True dat - have you read Nicholas Nassim Taleb on this topic?

Yeah, that's where I thought the turkey story was from

[phonicsmonkey]

Yeah, that's where I thought the turkey story was from

Correct (although originally from Bertrand Russell I think).

I like him (NNT) because he has practical experience. I also worked in an investment bank so I can relate to his experiences of managing real uncertainty. Plus he likes the same philosophers of science as I do... (Nelson Goodman, Kark Popper)