It really depends on your requirement for knowledge.....but its not like scientific knowledge is the only type of knowledge affected by skepticism.

@BenVTrigger

You seem to be confusing the difference between Law, Hypothesis, and Theory. Laws don't describe the mechanism that underlies what they are describing. They just describe what will happen given a certain set of circumstances. A Hypothesis is a idea put forward for consideration which matches observation, and is a attempt to explain the underlying mechanism. A Theory is more then a idea however. It has been validated, verified, and applied. In other words a theory isn't just useful it is actively used. Not just to explain things, but to make things.

In Science the vast majority of things we know are Laws. Only a small number of things are dedicated to the conjectures that surround those Laws be it Hypothesis or Theory. Further more when you get right down to it. Most of our Theories are really just a collection of Laws. Even if a flaw is discovered within a theory. Such as finding a situation where it fails, or is obviously lacking a critical detail. Some of the many equations in that theory can still be valid.

For the sake of a example if Einsteins theory of General Relativity were proven to not work at say the very center of Black Holes. It doesn't change the fact that those equations work here in our own Solar System. My cell phone won't suddenly stop working, because that Theory still adequately expresses the temporal difference between me on the Planets surface, and the Satellite in orbit that needs to take my call. The real problem that exists is that math seems to be Universal, and to be honest there isn't any reason to think that isn't the case.

We don't know much of what we know, because of Hypothesis of Theory. Like I said it is a really small part of things. Most of what we know comes from the application of Laws. We know how sound moves through liquids, solids, and gasses. We aren't guessing. We have centuries of experimentation that show us the end result. So when we fire sound waves through the planet, or listen for naturally occurring ones. We just listen, and compare it against the data we collected over all those centuries. Sound moving through Lead doesn't sound anything like sound moving through liquid Iron. We basically don't even need to know why the sound is different. We just need to recognize the sound.

You have to understand something about Scientists. Theoreticians proceeding the Experimentalists is actually a fairly recent phenomena. Theories usually came after the fact. We knew the colors elements produced when heated long before we had a theory to explain why they were different. You are kind of complicating things. We basically know a huge fucking number of things, and you shouldn't get hung up on theorists. Their job is to basically understand them, and try to simplify them into a framework.

Has that answered your question.

Kind of an odd statement given that you cited Descartes previously. Its not that hard to see how Descartes could take his skepticism one step futher and deny all knowledge.

"I think therefore I am" is not a fundamental truth. It actually assumes a foundational logical truth....the principle of non-contradiction. All Descartes has to do is question whether the principle of non-contradiction is true, which he did with every other possible piece of knowledge. After questioning this principle, his skepcticism would result in him concluding that knowledge is impossible.

But that's not possible. Because we KNOW that we don't know anything. That means we know something.

Not really. Descartes determined that there was always one foundational truth - i think therefore I am. Regardless of skepticism, that always remains true in the face of all arguments. No matter the level of skepticism, that will always hold true.

This page's subject is off to a good start, then entirely slaughtered due to misinterpreting the definitions of hypothesis and theory. Hypothesis and theory are entirely different levels. For example, I currently have a hypothesis about a prescription I am currently taking because I did not experience the side-effect when I didn't take it, but I have every time that I have taken it. That's my hypothesis. Isaac Newton on the other hand discovered what led to the theory of gravity. Gravity is a true theory.

The issue is that society has misinterpreted the true definition of theory. Every science professor I have ever had clarifies such. It drives them crazy.

I will never forget what my last biology professor said about such. (Note: I'm paraphrasing) "You know how the detective on CSI enters the crime scene and says 'This is my theory'? That is not a theory! That is a simple hypothesis!"

true, but we don't knw if they are wrong either. i'm sure there is some evidence to prove most theories and hypothesis are correct.

BenVTrigger said: I cant believe how many people I got to fall for this thread....... Lol it was my first atempt at a Rolstopable type thread and Id say I did wonderfully

hmm, still started an interesting discussion though lol...

BenVTrigger said: I cant believe how many people I got to fall for this thread....... Lol it was my first atempt at a Rolstopable type thread and Id say I did wonderfully

Well played, sir.

I didn't think you were a scientifically illiterate moron, but one can never be sure with these things.

Agreed. We are basically fish in a fish bowl looking out, unaware of 99.9% of what is happening around us. A thousand years ago we thought we knew everything, yet the knowledge gained since then would baffle anyone in those times. Similarly the knowledge we will gain a thousand years from now, we cannot even comprehend today.