13 things science can't explain

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... ?full=true

I must admit strongly disliking New Scientist, due to the general optimism it approaches science with. I see no really difference here, given that many of these examples deal with highly flaky parts of science, such as cosmology and interactions between mind and body.

What about the complete failure of science to accurately explain what exactly is going on at the quantum level? Causation is yet to be ascribed, it is unclear if even quantum entities can actually be considered to occupy a physical point in space and time like macro objects do.

Also, the what about quantum theory and relativity contradicting each other? They can be resolved by appeal to quantum information theory but there is not a shred of empirical evidence for that, beyond trying to explain away some major contradictions. There are certainly more likely solution, but they will require either quantum theory and or relativity to be false in some crucial regards.

Finally, what about the dubious status of genes? They certainly do not play the deterministic causal role once assigned to them. Genes just cannot account for divergence of traits that occur at that level and not higher levels as previously thought.

Science is full of contradiction and you do not have to go all the way obscure and shaky sciences to see it. Sorry if this sounds antagonistic, but optimism in science substantially holds back scientific progress.

Scientific results in the quantum realm are *quite* accurate. The failure of people to agree on an appropriate interpretation is arguably not a scientific issue at all.

I don't think it's just (age-of-the-universe * speed-of-light * 2). Hobservable Universe

I think the whole genes = destiny thing came more from the popular press than from science itself. None of the molecular biologists that Iknow EVER thought that genes were nearly as deterministic as the popular press often portrays.

They don't mention gamma ray bursts. That's my favorite. We regularly see huge bursts of gamma radiation from the far depths of space. Scientists conjure up black hole destroying each other, but that doesn't explain how often these events are recorded.

^
I think I read about that somewhere, recently. I think it's mentioned in the Pioneer paradox

Guuh, I'm too sleepy to read all of that. ~A~
Aren't there are LOTS of things science can't explain yet? Otherwise, we wouldn't be sciencing anymore.

Quantum theory is ridiculously accurate, for example the Lamb shift can be predicted to a silly number of decimal places.

However, I firmly reject that science such just be about predictions. Every major scientific advance has involved people going beyond the predictions, acknowledging the current ontology and speculating towards future ones. This is because prediction rarely shows causation and causal paths, it is ontological commitment which reveals these, which in turn revealed causal paths then produce further predictive successes.

I don't even think agreement on interpretation matters, what's important is that not a single interpretation can fully synthesis the data coherently. This suggests to me that quantum theory is inadequate and that advances will come from focusing on these gaps, however predictive it has been.

There are more things in heaven and earth than are currently dreamed of in anyone's philosophy or science. Science is necessarily a work in progress.

ruveyn

May I point out something? Ever thought our assumptions about certain "truths" might be wrong? Take quatumn physics, before, scientist thought everything obyed the laws of physics, then quarks were found.

I will have to work on the plesibo effect problem. The effect that it has one someone must be a survival trait. I have to admit it is a tough one. I got the reason why woman have big boobs theory wrong.

At every point in history, people have been quite convinced that their "truth" was correct. I see no reason to believe that our current "truth" is significantly more right than any of these past "truths".