I've been watching an unhealthy amount of national geographic, science channel and the discovery channel.
what i notice is that there's an obscene amount of assuming being done in the name of fact or "probability".
You've got some dude who figures some dude is buried in some place and it's the worlds right to see his bones and gaze in awe at his treasures in some museum. Then there's the other dudes arguing over what's in the middle of a galaxy, how the universe is made, and are making computer models to prove it, blahblahblah.
So, I guess what I'm asking is if there should be boundaries to what we should know. And then maybe acceptance of what we don't.
Should we strive to find the answer's to all things? Is that our evolution?
Should we dig up that dudes grave to find all those buried secrets and mysteries? Do we really need to know what's at the end of the universe, and how it was made? is it necessary? Or are we just inevitably assuming things and calling them fact or probability?
2007-01-02
18:44:47
·
9 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Philosophy