Re: We didn't start the fire? was Re: Alignment and 4E

tussock wrote:

Bull***. Science tells us how *and* why. Religion hides in the
places people don't use science and tries to do the same.

Science can only ever attempt to explain the how. Never the why. And, of
course, it can't really answer the how at the deepest levels (at least, not
yet - if anyone can finally come up with the Grand Unifying Theory, then
perhaps, but we won't know until we get there).

Why do we fall? Gravity. How? No clue. Particles called gravitons have
been postulated, but I've never heard of anyone proving they exist. (Of
course, I use the term "particle" extremely loosely here as we don't really
know WHAT exists at that small of a scale - sometimes they act as
particles, sometimes as waves, just like photons, but gravitons can
penetrate matter, unlike photons.)

Why are we limited to the speed of light? No clue. "It's the nature of the
universe." That's not an answer. It's a question (or it should be to any
sufficiently advanced theoretical scientist).

Why does time slow down/objects gain mass at high speeds (relative to c)?

What is an electron made up of? Neutron? Proton? Ok, we have theories on
this (quantum mechanics), but I'm not sure we've been able to prove them or
not. How about anti-electrons? Anti-neutrons? Anti-protons? Photons?
Anti-photons? What are quarks made up of?

We know that positive charges repel positive charges. What keeps protons
together in an atomic nucleus? Ok, it's the "strong force." But what the
heck IS that? How does it come about?

Science is getting quite good at dealing with reality at our own level:
low-speed (relative to c), large scale (atomic and larger), short distance
(mostly from here to the moon, not even generally that large - we'll see
how well we understand larger scale if we can get a manned mission to Mars
and back). Outside this comfort zone, we know little (not nothing) though
we have many unproven theories. Oddly enough, some of these theories are
unprovable by the scientific method, but because they don't contain hints
of "god" they are acceptable to scientists, but I digress.

Science is supposed to be like a 3-year-old-child, always asking "why."
Unlike the 3-year-old, however, it should not be content with answers
of "that's just the way it is." And that's why science can't answer why:
science is supposed to be the question, not the answer.
.

Quantcast