Limits of Science

Hi Simple.
Gotta love them empiricist. They were the ones that came up with the concept that causality can not be linked to observations of events. More than 250 years ago. Just because I drop an anvil above my foot does not mean it will fall on my foot and break it. The two events are separate. I drop the anvil. My foot is broken by it. But I do not know this will happen. I can only draw conclusions based on what happened before and what I know about gravity and mass and the fragility of my flesh and bone. I see the sun rise each morning and conclude it will rise tomorrow. I do not know for a fact that it will. I am simply assuming it will rise as it does each day based on it's past performance. So technically you are correct. We can not know anything except that we can not know everything. But as others have pointed out it is superfulous to doubt evidence on the bases of our inablility to measure. If that were the case we would never learn anything. IMO.

Would you accept the behavior of the tides as evidence to the presence of gravity in our distant past? Would you accept Newtons experiments centuries ago as evidence of past gravity behaviors. How about Dr. Einstien? No. I think you will simply
state that these example prove nothing. I could tell you that everything that exist was created this morning exactly as it is now with the illusion of age. Could you prove I am incorrect? It does not make any sense in my opinion to doubt evidence that is based on good scientific methodology . If you jump off a building today and break your leg. Whats to stop you from jumping the next week if not for the fear of a repeat example of gravitys affects on you? Can you prove the next time you jump you will fall? Or that there will be a different gravitational affect? No? Then why not jump? That was the past. You jumped last week. This is a new week. Why the hesitation? What is influencing your decision?

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche