Even if scientists find all the answers , aren't we still going to say what if they are wrong?

we always have, we always will

Please look at this and discuss link

Yes. I hope so. I don’t believe we will ever know everything. Medical science is wrong all the time. It is often right too, but we need to keep observing and questioning.

My thought is that, no matter if we believe we have found all the answers to life and the mutiverse, there will still be questions to ask “why”.

I agree with empirical evidence.I also think that sometimes there is no reason, an X factor if you will.There are variables in nature that, even with all the examination, will still be inexplicable.

At the time of realization, new factors will present themselves thus creating more questions

@Elm1969 Sounds like typical philosophical turf protection, like they’re the only ones that can formulate a complete cosmological understanding. But scientists don’t try to have mission creep but strive for a universal understanding, application of a universal rule.

But why does some second rate magazine writing philosophizer get to compartmentalize knowledge? Expansion of knowledge is to work to have integrity – integrity means one must be able to integrate knowledge across disiplines.

@zenvelo Disregarding the magazine’s stance, will we empiricaly know all the answers? I personally need factual evidence, but I don’t think that there will ever be empirical evidence for everything.

(Thinking out aloud) What makes one person prefer the colour blue to red for example? I don’t think it matters too much in the scale of things. Is it worth desciphering? probably not, but there is most likely a chemical reaction to different frequencies of light,but why?

Will we have to drill down to every nuance? Or can we exept an X factor?

Every answer science finds gives rise to other questions. I don’t think there is an end to it. I don’t think science will ever have all the answers. The universe becomes more mysterious the more we know about it.

@flutherother So in some respect, there is room for scientific and philosophical debate. Both must exist in order to fuel one another. Neither will agree, but they will drive each other to new assumptions. Positive and negative.

Yes, of course. The scientific process involves always trying to find counter-evidence to the currently accepted theories.

As hard as the “science equals faith” crowd tries to assert otherwise, actual science does not “stamp [its] mark” on things which are not measured.

People who are scientists may personally delve into questions of faith and opinion, but that’s on their own time.

Science always advances in jumps, with resistance against it every time. See:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

I suspect that scientists will always be one discovery short of finding all the answers.

If we ever stop asking that question, we’re fools. You can’t really be sure of anything.

Science isn’t science unless it’s faslifiable.

It is always up for the possibility that it is wrong. Otherwise, it’s simply blind faith.

I’ve heard it said that the greatest advances in science aren’t recognized by a cry of “Eureka!” but a cry of “Oops!”

Well, not quite “oops”, but more often “what the heck…??!” Why is that planet not where it was supposed to be? (Pluto) Why did my film get fogged up despite being in a black box (radiation) Why did my bacteria sample not grow across the whole petri dish (penicillin)