It was a rather simple question but I think i have my answer (i plead sheer ignorance and i genuinely wanted to know whether we considered our knowledge to be absolute).Unless you are a Superman or an alien being with superior knowledge, you have to work within the confines of the the knowledge humans have. And, this knowledge improves every year. How? By the way of understanding and measuring using more advanced equipment. When you have better measurements, you start having a better understanding of the science.
I'm afraid a lot of assumptions are being made. But referring back to the original assumption:Do you have any evidence to prove something different? When you have a discussion, it must be based on some empirical evidence, something you can plonk on the table so that others in the discussion can view it, understand it, and, measure it. If not, you are just a person who wants to be a different from everyone else, but does not understand in what way.
As I said before, science is constantly improving every year. But if you start questioning the very basis of science with something vague, something you claim only you understand, there is no scope for any discussion. Scientists are constantly questioning the scope of our knowledge for the betterment of our knowledge. But unless they can prove what they theorize with solid evidence, it is just a thought process, a way of thinking. Nothing more. Good scientists never question the current standards or beliefs. And their theory has to be peer reviewed and tested repeatedly till its stays strong.
Start believing in science and measurements. Otherwise next time you are sitting on a train that is moving at a measured 60kmph, you can always ask relative to what? Are we really moving? Is it really 60kmph?
That kind of questioning and thought process can never be the way science works.
Cheers
Since we can more or less agree that our knowledge is not complete, wouldn't it be stifling scientific curiosity and research if an observable or reported phenomenon (by some) is disbelieved, nay attacked and burnt at the stake on the basis that current scientific knowledge is incapable, inadequate or insufficient to understand it?What we must all understand is this. Irrespective of how trained, golden, or sensitive our ears are, they cannot match the the sensitivity of a good oscilloscope. An oscilloscope can measure frequencies that the human ear cannot even discern.
In general, if you are hearing things the oscilloscope says is not there, what can it be other than you own imagination or perception? Berating measurements as being meaningless is a sheer waste of time. The value of any science is in measurements. Otherwise science will fall flat on its head. A scientific discussion is always concluded with precise measurements.
Cheers