Is Science Futile? | Unlocking Nature's Mysteries

[Vexa]

Sciences of the universe seem like a colossal waste of time to me. Do scientists actually know anything (outside of the few laws we've established) to learn anything definitive about the universe? Everything is a theory, meaning it's fabricated and could be absolutely false. Yes, we may have some proof-like ideas to support theories, but in the end you cannot know for sure. How could you spend your entire life trying to understand something that is probably impossible to understand because it's completely beyond your realm of understanding?

Even if we did learn what makes the universe tick, what are we going to do with that knowledge? We can never leave Earth to avoid extinction and we'll eventually die out and the Earth will cease to exist and all that knowledge will be gone.

 

[Hurkyl]

We might build cars, televisions, computers, air conditioners, global positioning systems, ...

 

[arkajad]

How could you spend your entire life trying to understand something that is probably impossible to understand because it's completely beyond your realm of understanding?

And how could you spend your entire life writing about futility of science and similar things?

 

[jackmell]

Sciences of the universe seem like a colossal waste of time to me. Do scientists actually know anything (outside of the few laws we've established) to learn anything definitive about the universe? Everything is a theory, meaning it's fabricated and could be absolutely false. Yes, we may have some proof-like ideas to support theories, but in the end you cannot know for sure. How could you spend your entire life trying to understand something that is probably impossible to understand because it's completely beyond your realm of understanding?

Even if we did learn what makes the universe tick, what are we going to do with that knowledge? We can never leave Earth to avoid extinction and we'll eventually die out and the Earth will cease to exist and all that knowledge will be gone.

Ahhhh, but to discover something. Something no one has ever done before. To be the first human to conceive of such a thing, when all before you, the wisest of the wise, have not. :)

 

[JaredJames]

I'd rather go down in history as someone who at least tried to discover something, anything, about the universe than someone who sat around telling everyone not to bother and any effort is a waste of time.

 

[petm1]

Even if we did learn what makes the universe tick, what are we going to do with that knowledge?

We already know what makes the universe tick, its called time.

 

[Pythagorean]

OP, what would you consider not a waste of time?

 

[fatra2]

Hi there,

Even if we did learn what makes the universe tick, what are we going to do with that knowledge? We can never leave Earth to avoid extinction and we'll eventually die out and the Earth will cease to exist and all that knowledge will be gone.

The usefulness of scientific discovery will be a fundamental question, and that probably forever. What good are the discoveries scientists make?

I say that it's a forever question, because an old lady asked precisely this question to Faraday, in the 19th century. Into one of Faraday's conference on electricity, an old lady stood up and said that it's all good theories, but what good does it bring to the everyday life. I dare anyone today to live without it.

cheers

 

[Vexa]

OP, what would you consider not a waste of time?

Pursuit of senseless pleasure and orgies.

Hi there,

The usefulness of scientific discovery will be a fundamental question, and that probably forever. What good are the discoveries scientists make?

I say that it's a forever question, because an old lady asked precisely this question to Faraday, in the 19th century. Into one of Faraday's conference on electricity, an old lady stood up and said that it's all good theories, but what good does it bring to the everyday life. I dare anyone today to live without it.

cheers

Electricity and astrophysics are unrelated. If only we did focus on discovering things that could benefit mankind instead of chasing stardust and aliens.

 

[fatra2]

Hi there,

Electricity and astrophysics are unrelated. If only we did focus on discovering things that could benefit mankind instead of chasing stardust and aliens.

The question was not if astrophysics is futile, but general science. The world is there to be understood. We don't know if a discovery made today will not become the next "electricity" of tomorrow.

Science is there to help understand what surrounds us. Whether we find it useful today or not, we never know when it will become intrinsically part of every lives.

Cheers

 

[The legend]

you know what.. the computer/mobile internet you use,or almost anything you use, is a product of this science..

just as fatra2 said,Science is mainly is about understanding what surrounds you.

and, if we don't achieve something in a particular field now(which is not the real case) that doesn't mean it is totally futile...

 

[Vexa]

I specifically said "sciences of the universe (cosmology, astrology, astrophysics)." Maybe I should have excluded Earth. I'm not arguing science isn't an invaluable tool, I'm saying that we use it to try to understand something far beyond our reach. We have so many problems on Earth, that I don't believe we can afford to stare at galaxies all day.

 

[fatra2]

Hi there,

OK, then let's talk about astro... something. Let's take an example again. The materials that has been developed for the space suits of the astronauts are now used on Earth. There are many more examples where looking up to the sky leads to a discovery that can be used here on Earth.

I don't believe that there are any useless fields of science. And just because it does not bring something tomorrow, it might bring something one day. I believe the fireman that wear non-flamable clothing are probably very happy about this development of the 70's.

Cheers

 

[Jack21222]

I specifically said "sciences of the universe (cosmology, astrology, astrophysics)." Maybe I should have excluded Earth. I'm not arguing science isn't an invaluable tool, I'm saying that we use it to try to understand something far beyond our reach. We have so many problems on Earth, that I don't believe we can afford to stare at galaxies all day.

ASTROLOGY ISN'T A SCIENCE.

Why didn't you add in "cosmetology" while you're at it?

 

[Pythagorean]

Pursuit of senseless pleasure and orgies.




Electricity and astrophysics are unrelated. If only we did focus on discovering things that could benefit mankind instead of chasing stardust and aliens.

These two excerpts are contradictory. In the one hand, you seem to be a hedonist (which I essentially am, myself) by saying that people should do fun stuff (senseless pleasure, orgies, etc) that they enjoy. So then why would you criticize cosmologists without knowing their motivation? It could be erotic, interesting, addictive, and fun to them.

But then on the other hand you talk about benefiting mankind (which again, if you're a hedonist, it does benefit mankind by satisfying their curiosities).

 

[JDStupi]

Haha, come on, consistency is key. First, look at what Pythagorean said, then look at yourself. Please analyze your own beliefs, what about art? What is the point of art? It doesn't do anything. What about music? It doesn't do anything. Are they all pointless because they're not utilitarian? "Theory: meaning it's isn't definitive and could be false" Go study epistemology and tell me your whole life doesn't fit that criterion. Proof? What is proof? A definitive illustration that occurs in formal systems by means of explication of a tautology? Where would everyday Newtonian Mechanics be without Kepler's Laws and study of space? We have learned a lot about the universe, yes the realm of the transcendental is not accessible to us, but does that mean all pursuit of knowledge is ill-fated? What is knowledge? So let's all be nihilists and hedonists and relativists. I do not know who said it, but skepticism and complete belief are the easiest ways to go through life, because it absolves you of having to think and reason. If you doubt absolutley everything and say "we'll never understand" you aren't reasoning, your "leveling".

 

[Dembadon]

OP, what would you consider not a waste of time?

Pursuit of senseless pleasure and orgies.

... If only we did focus on discovering things that could benefit mankind instead of ...

How would mankind benefit from you fulfilling your exotic fantasies?

 

[JAlderman_FL]

It could be reasonably argued that existence is pointless... I mean, there's a 50/50 chance this is all a simulation, but even arguing pointlessness (imo) is a spiritual pursuit. I'm a fan of the idea that we can't know enough, and when that big chill or whatever comes we look around with our big old knowledge, for another big bang or brane or whatever we finally understand to be the answer to the question of existence.

 

[preluderacer]

If you swear that there's no truth, how come you say it like you're right?

 

[Evo]

It could be reasonably argued that existence is pointless... I mean, there's a 50/50 chance this is all a simulation, but even arguing pointlessness (imo) is a spiritual pursuit. I'm a fan of the idea that we can't know enough, and when that big chill or whatever comes we look around with our big old knowledge, for another big bang or brane or whatever we finally understand to be the answer to the question of existence.

50/50 chance this (assuming all we know) is a simulation? Where did you get that?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Even if we did learn what makes the universe tick, what are we going to do with that knowledge? We can never leave Earth to avoid extinction and we'll eventually die out and the Earth will cease to exist and all that knowledge will be gone.

Why can we never leave the Earth? This statement assumes that we know the limits of technology, which we can't without first knowing what makes the universe tick. This is what ultimately determines the limits of technology. A complete understanding of physics is almost certainly dependent on our understanding of the cosmos. So the future of humanity could depend in part on the work of Cosmologists, Astrophysicists, and Astronomers. Beyond that, the money spent on this sort of science is very small compared to what we spend on things like, weapons, for example. Now if you want to talk about something that is futile and wasteful, how about war? Going way back, I have often wondered about the significance of the burning of the Library at Alexandria. How long did this set back all of humanity, and how far? We can never know.

I thought this was interesting. Someone once noted that as a nation, we spend many times [probably orders of magnitude, not sure] more on video games, than we do to detect earth-crossing asteroids that could wipe out life on earth. Of course, were it not for Astronomers like Eugene Shoemaker, we wouldn't even know the threat exists.

 

[Upisoft]

Why can we never leave the Earth? This statement assumes that we know the limits of technology, which we can't without first knowing what makes the universe tick.

Maybe we will leave Earth and maybe not. It is not possible to know that for sure. But in either case what is the point to leave Earth anyway?

I thought this was interesting. Someone once noted that as a nation, we spend many times [probably orders of magnitude, not sure] more on video games, than we do to detect earth-crossing asteroids that could wipe out life on earth. Of course, were it not for Astronomers like Eugene Shoemaker, we wouldn't even know the threat exists.

And what is the point to spend money on something that we can't avoid? It is like spending money on fortune-teller to tell you when you are going to die. And when we develop the technology to avoid such collision there will be reason to spend more money on knowing the danger.

 

[humanino]

Maybe we will leave Earth and maybe not. It is not possible to know that for sure. But in either case what is the point to leave Earth anyway?

Limited resources : if nothing else, even the Sun eventually runs out of steam.

One can not justify fundamental research by its potentially unknown benefits. Plank would worry about the heat spectrum of an oven. Now we communicate with computers thanks to his discoveries. To question fundamental science is not just a lack of perspective, it is also denying one fundamental trait of humanity : curiosity.

By the way, without a few nerds worrying about sending stuff in orbit, there is no artificial satellite for the observation of our precious Globe.

And what is the point to spend money on something that we can't avoid?

Just trying to survive by all means, including knowledge, is another fundamental traits of humanity. Without knowledge there is no freedom.

 

[Hepth]

50/50 chance this (assuming all we know) is a simulation? Where did you get that?

It either is, or it isn't. 50/50.

Did I do that right... ;)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Maybe we will leave Earth and maybe not. It is not possible to know that for sure. But in either case what is the point to leave Earth anyway?

Did you read the first post?

And what is the point to spend money on something that we can't avoid? It is like spending money on fortune-teller to tell you when you are going to die. And when we develop the technology to avoid such collision there will be reason to spend more money on knowing the danger.

There are many models considered for technology that might be used to deflect asteroids. Why do you assume a negative position when you have no information? In any event, doesn't your unsupported assumption here answer your first question?

 

[sganesh88]

you know what.. the computer/mobile internet you use,or almost anything you use, is a product of this science..

just as fatra2 said,Science is mainly is about understanding what surrounds you.

and, if we don't achieve something in a particular field now(which is not the real case) that doesn't mean it is totally futile...

Is building gadgets, the "use" of science? Its an unimportant by-product.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One can not justify fundamental research by its potentially unknown benefits. Plank would worry about the heat spectrum of an oven. Now we communicate with computers thanks to his discoveries.

I think you contradict yourself here with the following qualifier: Fundamental research is justified by the history of its success. This in turn justifies the bet on future discoveries. In 500 years, science has transformed the human race.

 

[russ_watters]

Is building gadgets, the "use" of science? Its an unimportant by-product.

You consider building gadgets to be "unimportant"? Really?

 

[Ken Natton]

I’ll admit, my spontaneous response to the assertions in the original post was that it wasn’t worth wasting time on. You don’t even have to look at the high technology of recent years. Right from our first domestication of corn and wheat that enabled us to give up our nomadic existence and begin to build civilisations, the utility of our fundamental innate curiosity and ingenuity has proven itself. The notion that science is futile is just so dumb that it didn’t seem to me that there could be anything worth discussing. But there is, admittedly a purely philosophical point that arises from the more recent posts that I, at least, find interesting. Is it the case that science is purely utilitarian? Is the justification of any scientific endeavour to be purely a matter of increasing the comfort and convenience or helping to ensure the long-term survival of humanity? Or is there any value in knowing for no other reason than that? Just knowing. Even among the knowledgeable contributors to these forums, how many have a genuine utilitarian need to know and understand relativity? It is clear, the overwhelming majority of the human population of the Earth lead perfectly useful, perfectly worthwhile lives knowing nothing whatever about it. The number of people who really need to know about it is really very tiny. But as soon as you know that your sense of the reality in which you live is flawed, isn’t there a basic drive, an itch that needs to be scratched, to have at least some insight into what that flaw is, and how things really are?

 

[humanino]

I think you contradict yourself here with the following qualifier: Fundamental research is justified by the history of its success. This in turn justifies the bet on future discoveries. In 500 years, science has transformed the human race.

If the pursuit of fundamental research had to be justified, it would historically justify itself from the benefits. I meant to say that we can not justify today's research by arguing about it's potential future discoveries. Maybe that was not clear. There is no way anyone would have guessed at the dawn of the XXiest century how Planck's quantum mechanics would transform our societies on the long term. The list goes on : all medical imaging devices come from fundamental physics. The CERN gave us HTML protocols. Now with the LHC they contributed again to Computing Grids, which was originally largely from SETI (to search for Aliens !).

It may be worth repeating what you also said earlier : that the future of physics goes through cosmology. Various "cosmic rays" (in their most general sense) save us from building insanely large accelerators. We have hints for explanations to dark matter from cosmic rays. We can now design new experiments to try to test various hypothesis in the lab, and possibly unravel a form of matter at least four times more abundant in the Universe than our form of matter. Ours are very exciting times for astrophysics.

 

[JAlderman_FL]

50/50 chance this (assuming all we know) is a simulation? Where did you get that?

http://www.simulation-argument.com/" Because of it's foreign feel, though, I can see judging the idea harshly as a reaction. This is not the original source for my thoughts, but it explains the idea well enough.

 

[JAlderman_FL]

It either is, or it isn't. 50/50.

Did I do that right... ;)

:) exactly

 

[stevenb]

I hate to respond to trollers, but can't resist this one.

Pursuit of senseless pleasure and orgies.

The pursuit of pleasure and orgies and the pursuit of science are not mutually exclusive. Maybe you just need to learn to multitask.

Also, some of us find as much pleasure in the pursuit of science as you do in the pursuit of orgies. So, at the very least you should understand and approve of scientific activity on the grounds that pleasure can be found in it.

In some ways, science is like an intellectual orgy.

 

[Upisoft]

Limited resources : if nothing else, even the Sun eventually runs out of steam.

And then what.. repeat the process all over again, because the new place would be exactly the same. The resources will be limited and the local star/s will eventually follow our Sun bright example. That process has an end too. Then we run where?

One can not justify fundamental research by its potentially unknown benefits. Plank would worry about the heat spectrum of an oven. Now we communicate with computers thanks to his discoveries. To question fundamental science is not just a lack of perspective, it is also denying one fundamental trait of humanity : curiosity.

Curiosity is a trait of many species. My cat has it too. Unfortunately he is a fat tomcat that has never done any genuine research. And at this point his curiosity is limited to what is next available for eating. Also I know people that do what they call science without any curiosity, just being very pedantic. Anyway the point is that curiosity does not necessary mean science nor science necessary mean curiosity.

Just trying to survive by all means, including knowledge, is another fundamental traits of humanity. Without knowledge there is no freedom.

Survival is fundamental trait of life. But only humans(from all species I know) are able to understand the futility of it. And only few of them do understand that. The rest choose to rely on the instinct of survival they share with the rest of the lifeforms.

The rest of the life on Earth possesses no notable knowledge and they build no prisons, they make no world wars, nor they hunt its own kind. They don't bomb-suicide nor kill for cause. They do not do experiments with other species nor they kill for pleasure. That list can go on... a lot. Maybe knowledge gives us freedom, but freedom to do what?

 

[Evo]

It either is, or it isn't. 50/50.

Did I do that right... ;)

http://www.simulation-argument.com/" Because of it's foreign feel, though, I can see judging the idea harshly as a reaction. This is not the original source for my thoughts, but it explains the idea well enough.

If I'm a simulation, I want to be upgraded.

Ok, back to the topic.

 

[loseyourname]

You got to do something for a paycheck. Not everyone can be a plastic surgeon without borders reconstructing jaw-lines pro bono for malformed Peruvian newborns. And it's even harder to become a male porn star, which seems to be your suggestion.

 

[humanino]

And then what.. repeat the process all over again, because the new place would be exactly the same. The resources will be limited and the local star/s will eventually follow our Sun bright example. That process has an end too. Then we run where?

Yes, repeat if necessary. Just a reminder, your own proposal consist of what ? Give up and die ?

Curiosity is a trait of many species. My cat has it too. Unfortunately he is a fat tomcat that has never done any genuine research. And at this point his curiosity is limited to what is next available for eating. Also I know people that do what they call science without any curiosity, just being very pedantic. Anyway the point is that curiosity does not necessary mean science nor science necessary mean curiosity.

So you do let your cat fulfill its curiosity, but you deny it to humans ?

freedom to do what?

Freedom to act to do better.

It is not up to general public and laymen to define the directions of fundamental research, but it is the responsibility of researchers to discuss with society at large and come to an agreement on the borders beyond which fundamental research can not go based on ethical grounds. To focus the discussion :

(1) do you accept that fundamental research has brought genuine progress for society which could not be foreseen beforehand ?

(2) If (1) holds then we should continue the pursuit of fundamental research in physics ?

(3) If (1) and (2), is your question essentially : why does fundamental research need to proceed with cosmology ?

 

[Phyisab****]

We might build cars, televisions, computers, air conditioners, global positioning systems, ...

This.

 

[Phyisab****]

These two excerpts are contradictory. In the one hand, you seem to be a hedonist (which I essentially am, myself) by saying that people should do fun stuff (senseless pleasure, orgies, etc) that they enjoy. So then why would you criticize cosmologists without knowing their motivation? It could be erotic, interesting, addictive, and fun to them.

But then on the other hand you talk about benefiting mankind (which again, if you're a hedonist, it does benefit mankind by satisfying their curiosities).

And this.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If the pursuit of fundamental research had to be justified, it would historically justify itself from the benefits. I meant to say that we can not justify today's research by arguing about it's potential future discoveries.

I understand that and I think we can.

Are you saying that we can't justify the immediate cost because we derive no immediate benefit, or are you saying that we can't justify the cost based on the potential for profound future discoveries, because we don't know that we will have any?

 

[Vexa]

Why can we never leave the Earth? This statement assumes that we know the limits of technology, which we can't without first knowing what makes the universe tick. This is what ultimately determines the limits of technology. A complete understanding of physics is almost certainly dependent on our understanding of the cosmos. So the future of humanity could depend in part on the work of Cosmologists, Astrophysicists, and Astronomers. Beyond that, the money spent on this sort of science is very small compared to what we spend on things like, weapons, for example. Now if you want to talk about something that is futile and wasteful, how about war? Going way back, I have often wondered about the significance of the burning of the Library at Alexandria. How long did this set back all of humanity, and how far? We can never know.

Why can we never leave Earth? Because we don't live for thousands of years and it's impossible to go faster than light. All the science used to explain the universe is theoretical, or in other words, only in our imagination.

I thought this was interesting. Someone once noted that as a nation, we spend many times [probably orders of magnitude, not sure] more on video games, than we do to detect earth-crossing asteroids that could wipe out life on earth. Of course, were it not for Astronomers like Eugene Shoemaker, we wouldn't even know the threat exists.

What could we possibly do to stop something from destroying the Earth? Humans have this strange idea that we control nature. We are the mercy of the universe, not the other way around.

 

[G037H3]

Why can we never leave Earth? Because we don't live for thousands of years and it's impossible to go faster than light.



What could we possibly due to stop anything from destroying the Earth? Humans have this strange idea that we control nature. We are the mercy of the universe, not the other way around.

it's currently believed to be impossible, doesn't mean it's impossible

we know so little

only way to save the Earth=Europe regains self-confidence and takes over world

 

[Upisoft]

Yes, repeat if necessary. Just a reminder, your own proposal consist of what ? Give up and die ?

We are already dead. Time is just another dimension. Just look at the other end of the scale.

So you do let your cat fulfill its curiosity, but you deny it to humans ?

Nope. I don't deny it. Let them do it with their own money, as I do. This way there will be no nonsense research.

Freedom to act to do better.

Looking at the bright side, yes.

It is not up to general public and laymen to define the directions of fundamental research, but it is the responsibility of researchers to discuss with society at large and come to an agreement on the borders beyond which fundamental research can not go based on ethical grounds. To focus the discussion :

(1) do you accept that fundamental research has brought genuine progress for society which could not be foreseen beforehand ?

(2) If (1) holds then we should continue the pursuit of fundamental research in physics ?

(3) If (1) and (2), is your question essentially : why does fundamental research need to proceed with cosmology ?

(1) You may see progress if you look on the bright side, you may see regress (wars, etc. things i already mentioned). But if you look objectively you can see only change. Progress or not is in the eye of beholder.

(2) and (3) fail on the if side.. no discussion required.

 

[D H]

Why can we never leave Earth? Because we don't live for thousands of years and it's impossible to go faster than light. All the science used to explain the universe is theoretical, or in other words, only in our imagination.

There are lots of ways to "leave Earth" beside going to another star.

What could we possibly do to stop something from destroying the Earth?

You made this statement in response to Ivan's comment about Earth-crossing asteroids. Given ample response time there are lots of things we could do to stop such an asteroid from destroying the Earth. That is the primary justification for looking for them.

Humans have this strange idea that we control nature. We are the mercy of the universe, not the other way around.

That we most certainly do control nature to a very large extent is blatantly obvious whenever you take an airplane flight. Humans have reshaped a significant portion of the face of the third of the Earth covered by land. Whether that is a good thing is a different question.

 

[Vexa]

There are lots of ways to "leave Earth" beside going to another star.

Good luck terraforming Mars.

it's currently believed to be impossible, doesn't mean it's impossible

we know so little

only way to save the Earth=Europe regains self-confidence and takes over world

Even if we knew a lot more, we would still know nothing.

I guess people didn't understand what I was trying to say in my original post. I'm only trying to express that we shouldn't spend our time worrying about the rest of the universe. It's a big boy and can take care of itself. Science should be used to improve life on Earth (while it is still here).

As for my post about my hedonistic attitude, I'm not being selfish saying we should only worry about fulfilling our own desires. As humans, we must rely on each other. So any advancements made by one can benefit everyone. Advancements made trying to prove the fairytale that is string theory, benefit no one.

 

[humanino]

Are you saying that we can't justify the immediate cost because we derive no immediate benefit, or are you saying that we can't justify the cost based on the potential for profound future discoveries, because we don't know that we will have any?

I was essentially saying your former formulation. In particular, I am convinced that we have many profound discoveries to come, and I would bet even during my lifetime. My preferred formulation is that trying to justify today's research is misguided. It is an ill-posed question since we obviously do not know the future.

But maybe I will try to elaborate then : it appears to me that the benefit we gain is often inversely proportional to the time it takes for it to unravel.

(1) You may see progress if you look on the bright side, you may see regress (wars, etc. things i already mentioned). But if you look objectively you can see only change. Progress or not is in the eye of beholder.

I think we have ample evidence that violence decreased in our societies.
Steven Pinker on the myth of violence
Also take a look at the number of historical deaths due to now virtually extinct diseases. Do you ever use modern medication ?

I guess people didn't understand what I was trying to say in my original post. I'm only trying to express that we shouldn't spend our time worrying about the rest of the universe. It's a big boy and can take care of itself. Science should be used to improve life on Earth (while it is still here).

I mentioned earlier artificial satellites for the observation of Earth, or the Computing Grids which came to reality thanks to SETI and greatly expanded in the LHC age. Both of them are tremendous contributions for a better Earth coming from fundamental questions about the Universe.

 

[sganesh88]

You consider building gadgets to be "unimportant"? Really?

Gadgets turn out to be useful and fun but no, i don't think they are "important". Thousands of generations have lived without them; do you think their life was empty without gadgets and scientific inventions? My point is that, scientific quest is much too beautiful to be constrained to a 'purpose' of promoting inventions. Read Ken Natton's post (below this post of your's)

 

[sganesh88]

I'm only trying to express that we shouldn't spend our time worrying about the rest of the universe. It's a big boy and can take care of itself. Science should be used to improve life on Earth (while it is still here).

As humans, we must rely on each other. So any advancements made by one can benefit everyone. Advancements made trying to prove the fairytale that is string theory, benefit no one.

Accept the fact. Life is purposeless. Distinguishing things into beneficial and worthless wouldn't take you anywhere. Does sex make any 'sense'. Yet its driving the world. Even you, apparently.

 

[binbots]

I think it comes back the the same old questtions that we all ask. What is the point of life? What does it all mean? etc. Some people take religion to asnwer these questions. Others don't even think about such things. The rest of us seem to look towards science. The think is that science is the last place to look for such answers. Sience tells us how things work, and from that we can improve our lives in a physical sense. But this is all science does. It only expalins the how, not the why that we all seek. No matter hwo much knowledge we optain we will never learn the true nature of life. The answers will never be some equation.
So yes, science is futile when it comes to knowing what life is. But no science is not futile in our lifes.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

I specifically said "sciences of the universe (cosmology, astrology, astrophysics)." Maybe I should have excluded Earth. I'm not arguing science isn't an invaluable tool, I'm saying that we use it to try to understand something far beyond our reach. We have so many problems on Earth, that I don't believe we can afford to stare at galaxies all day.

Well it still can be applied.

Remeber in the past our ancestors used astronomy and the stars to navigate through the seas.

Nowadays we try to understand what is the direction the universe is heading to, and finding earth-like planets to obviously someday inhabit it.

Everything is applicable...
And anyway Cosmology is cool!
:!)