| Author |
Message |
|
| General Forum -> General Discussions ~ Science and Human Limitations |
|
 Posted:
Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:31 pm
|
|
|
Royal Member of BonBon
Joined: 31 Oct 2009
Posts: 2178
|
|
I have been thinking about the overall purpose of a scientist. To me, the purpose of a scientist is to analyze and investigate the natural world around them. This series of observation and testing has led to numerous breakthroughs, such as learning the laws of physics, the development of life-saving medications, and the understanding of what exists besides our humble planet.
However, one disturbing thought has crossed my mind as of late. Allow me to relay my concern with a scenario:
Imagine that somewhere in the future (could be several days or several centuries down the line), a collaboration of the world's brightest minds have determined that there is nothing else to discover. Every single mystery and inquiry has been solved. Our limitations in our understanding of the world have been reached.
What will become of society at that point? Do scientists continue onward, trying to find one more phenomena to discover despite learning such a harsh reality? Or does civilization, having been constructed on such discoveries, lose value and falls apart? Let me know of your thoughts on this quandary. |
_________________
My Fursona
FA Page |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| Posted:
Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:41 pm
|
|
|
Rank: Super Veteran
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Posts: 6953
|
|
Well there is always the concept of why there is no more left to discover..They could investigate why there is nothing left to know.
If you want to talk Philosophy them I'm your guy..Its what I'm good at. |
_________________
"Shake the hand that shook the world"
-Randall Flagg-
"Bleach is healthy... It's mostly water; and we're mostly water. Therefore, we are bleach."
-Nathan Explosion-
-----
Pachs Gajah |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:29 am
|
|
|
Rank: Rookie
Joined: 29 Jun 2010
Posts: 96
|
|
Have to agree with Pachs on that one. Mankind being the ever curious creature that he is has even theorized,calculated futuristic creatures along the evolutionary path following natures selections and probabilities. Although in contrast IF mankind is extinct at that time just how the heck they gonna study let alone prove they were right? Kinda like the old joke of the fastest man to ever run was Adam unfortunately no one else was around to clock him.   |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sun Oct 03, 2010 7:54 am
|
|
|
Rank: Super Veteran
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Posts: 4141
|
|
| Well...... I am being a believer of God... feel that we didn't evolve. Though that's my opinion. |
_________________
"Nothing is so strong as gentleness. Nothing is so gentle as real strength."- From your sincere gentleman of PBB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:06 pm
|
|
|
Rank: Senior Member
Joined: 23 Oct 2009
Posts: 288
|
|
Pachs, I find your response kind of funny. I find the question to rather philosophical.
Leaf, I guess I'd respond as such, what says that there is a limit to the collection of knowledge?
And what says that we would live long enough to reach the hypothetical limits.
Not really helpful but......
In actually answering your question:
I think, scientists would continue to search for new information and refine theories that have already been made. (Of course having said that, I realize that that wouldn't be the case, because it would all be known.)
Would society fall apart?
Does society rely on the continued discoveries of science? |
_________________
Alain Daishar Profile: http://forums.pleasurebonbon.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8174&highlight= |
|
|
|
|
|
|
