You don't get something for nothing....

[d000hg]

That is a problem with public perception of science, not science itself.

To an extent yes, and scientists continually find ways to test seemingly untestable theories, but the further we get into the realms of multiverses, additional dimensions & hyper-energy entities, the harder it gets. Furthermore, the measurements and techniques get more and more complicated so we mere mortals have to place ever increasing faith that what the scientists tell us is actually true.

[SpontaneousOrder]

bollux. you think we are ever going to know how the universe started?

Its tough enough finding out how cuk started.

Science is about probabilities. 'proof' is a subjective assessment - we can never prove anything with absolute certainly (like the moon isn't made of cheese), other than things which are a priori truths to begin with (e.g. 1 + 1 = 2).

Al we can do is say that something is so probably true that we are happy to consider it as being true, or that something is so unlikely that we can reasonably consider it to be false.

Supposing that we will never find out how the universe started says nothing about the science of studying how it may have started. Just because the degree of certainty when it comes to the probabilities is uncertain, doesn't make it not science. Or even bad science.

[doodab]

bollux. you think we are ever going to know how the universe started?

Believing we will never know requires just as much faith as anything else.

[doodab]

Furthermore, the measurements and techniques get more and more complicated so we mere mortals have to place ever increasing faith that what the scientists tell us is actually true.

Or we need a higher standard of education so that we don't get left behind.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Or we need a higher standard of education so that we don't get left behind.

We're so wealthy now compared to a few hundred years ago because of division of labour. Science will be no different (i think) so I don't think education will help.

I would say, though, that we will have to 'trust' scientists, rather than have 'faith' in them. I think it's a subtle, but important difference.

[d000hg]

I don't mean trust that they're not lying... often you are not directly measuring stuff but measuring the effect it has on something else. As we get further and further away from laboratory conditions, this can be more than one level deep... we think X does something that will cause Y, and Y will cause Z which we can measure, so if we see Z X has happened. But are we 100% certain X does cause Y when we can't measure that directly either, and that Z can only happen due to Y.

The complexity in measuring is mindboggling, read anything about how the LHC detects Higgs and it's astounding.