I'm taking philosophy of science right now (as half my credits, physics is the other half).

This kind of thing: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/ [which concerns whether unobservable measurements are real]

We do an essay a week on things like that.

My friend no instrument ever recorded the center of the suns temperature......

Weve measured stuff near the surface that allows us to guess based on things we "know" what the center is.  You keep throwing arounds things like University to sound grand.  Use your basic human reasoning sir.

What Im saying is not a complex thought.  You cant know something 100 percent without in some way observing it.  That my friend is a fact.  You have to concede we do not know beyond without doubt the center of the suns temperature.  We dont. We really dont.  Again your dodgeing my ce tral point.

Im not saying the center of the sun isnt 27 million degrees as I believe we have enough evidence to probably say it is.  But the key there is im saying there is evidence which supportes it.  We dont know beyond question without direct observation.  That sir is a fact

The scientific method trumps human reasoning. 

Your thinking again is just wrong. You state that to know the temperature of the centre of the sun we would have to directly measure it. But that thinking is an infinite regression as how do we know the device is correct? We'd have to use a 2nd, and a 3rd, and a fourth etc, and then measure the measurements etc. It's nothing more then paranoia and not understanding how systems interconnect. 

The problem is what you are saying is not complex because you are not understanding the complex nature of the systems you are measuring. 

Here's a good example. To measure the movement of a glacier you believe some poor bastard would have to stand by it for decades with a ruler. 

However one indirect way glacial movement can be measured is when bodies emerge at the bottom of them. You determine when the person went missing, the date the body was found and there you have the movement of a glacier. 

Your central point is nothing more then you not understanding how systems are interconnected.

"You cant know something 100 percent without in some way observing it.  That my friend is a fact. "

Wrong. Due to the nature of waves, we can determine that the core of the earth is solid. We've never seen it, but thanks to physics, we know this to be a fact. 

To say we don't know much would deny all the progress we have made over the years. That is absurd we may not know everything but we know a shitload.

You keep saying I dont understand the processes........I do.

Im playing devils advocate.  But my point is that true knowledge, true unshakable without question doesnt exist much.  It all boils down to damn good hypothesis and theories.  Which is true.  

My general point is we dont know much beyond question.  You and I believe mostly the same things.  Im presenting the argument however that real absolute truth requires direct observation in one way or another.  It really does.  

True knowledge exists. The problem here isn't knowledge or truth, it's unrelenting, baseless skepticism. 

It doesn't boil down to theories because the universe doesn't tend to change:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law

We do know a lot, but still very little on the grand schemes of things. 

As I said, direct observation can still be held under just as much scrutiny as indirect observation. Wittgenstein said this sort of infinite regression was a complete waste of time, and I have to agree with him. 

Apparently we know enough to be able to complain on a world wide instant communications platform about how we know nothing. That same platform that allows us to instantly look up all the things that have learned through the ages. No we know nothing!

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 as for the originally post that why there is the axiom "The more we know, the less we understand." But there are a lot of things we can deduce from what we know. One poster put the temperature of the sun. We can do a spectral analysis of the sun. (Using the EM spectrum) to find the approximate make up of the sun, and we can use what we know about the make to figure out how hot the sun is from that. (Usually in text book they give a range of error next to temperature.)

Also since we are using deduction to figure some of the "facts" out its not out of line for the facts to change especially with a new discovery. When I entered High School in the early 90's the expected age of the universe was a little over 110billion years, by time I graduated that changed to 50-to-60 billion and now consider 13.7billion years.

We still have to discover all the life inhabiting the Earth. We still know very little about the brain, we do have models but there are still a ton of questions with theories attached them.

Though I have to agree there is a lot of theories and models taught as fact, which only end up being tossed out. A good example of this is Clovis First, which after nearly a half century of being the model taught in school as how the North American region what inhabited, has been binned after new dating techniques proved the model is flawed. I remember a science teacher telling me in middle school. "You know all the stuff they taught you in science in grade school forget it because its wrong." The reason why I'm guessing it is taught as fact is: 1) The teacher was taught it as fact, or has a preference. 2) Some fields have so many competing models it is not possible to cover them all so the most popular/teacher preference is taught.

...I have to leave for work and this post is taking a life of its own. So I will end here.

I agree to an extent. I think science is a good for studying the natural world and we should thoroughly study what is around us... studying what we can't see and is intangible, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter... literally. You have to believe that there is nothing beyond what we can see and study to think that this is all there is to it... that's up to each person to decide, and you shouldn't worry about what other people tell you to 'think' about it.

Curiosity and pondering, both directions, is good for the brain and our society's advancement on many levels. We are all fundamentally the same in that we know less than we think we know, so I think that thought is also very humbling and I agree....So in that way I think, patience is a virtue, not a right.

EDIT: BTW, I understand your point about the Sun, but a little differently. I think there will be some point in time, going forward, that if we just kept advancing our knowledge scientifically say towards the limit of total understanding, that we will eventually hit a cliff... for example, we may need to have components to study something that cannot be studied, not possible. So even Science... could have it's limits. Curiosity does not.