- Oct 17, 2003
*Offtopic*To add to (and not detract from) your post.
Science is limited.
That which is known (that can be scientifically proven to be true) is dwarfed by that which is not (yet) known.
It is downright silly to argue that something is not true/real if it is not scientifically proven to be true/real.
Non-proof is not proof.
I really do wish you'd step away from using the word "proof" and its derivatives in conjunction with science. Even in instances where the evidence is empirical, it is still evidence, not proof.
Science is not limited. Humanity is limited.
The absence of evidence is merely ignorance and which is why it's called an argument from ignorance.
You really should brush up on that speed of dark video again. What we don't know is an ever expanding circle that far outpaces what we do know.
Every time people using the scientific method (i.e. science) discovers something new, or provides evidence for a standing theory, it clarifies what we do know but more importantly shows us how much we don't know by raising more questions about what we've discovered than we know to answer.
Arguably, we're going to be in a perpetual state of ignorance for eternity, but it does not devalue the state of our knowledge in any way because it is growing as well.