Very little, it seems. In fact, the New Scientist has listed seven unsolved mysteries about gravity, including "What is gravity?" And this, mind you, for one of the most familiar and studied aspects of the physical world! As I mentioned earlier, as long as science is confined to naturalism, questions like these will remain mysteries.

(Image courtesy of the New Scientist)

Comments

[Mike D'Virgilio]

This is great stuff. It is amazing what a scam the scientific community has pulled over most Americans. I don't read a lot in science (Regis, I'm sure you read widely in science--is this as unusual as it seems?), but I don't think you'll find such humility in most or maybe all science writing as you find in these pieces about gravity.

It is amazing how little we humans really know about how our world and universe works. Yet the high priests of our age, scientists, parade around with a certitude that is unbecoming of such finite creatures.

[TaylorH]

I wonder how much of this "science parade" is done by actual scientists and how much of it is done by journalists and the media. When Ida, "the missing link", was highly publicized recently, much of the research science community seemed to shun the media for the assumptions that were made.

I do acknowledge that some scientists are a part of the "parade", but please do not discount science and the study of God's natural world as completely secular.

What do you think?

[Benjamen R. Meyer]

I think that regardless of your background or area of research, you need to layout as much of (a) the facts, (b) the thoughts based on the facts, and (b) any assumptions behind facts and thoughts. It may not be easy - but it will certainly be telling; and it will be the only way for science to be truly transparent and up front about itself - it'll also show how science can truly be integrated with various beliefs (and how it has become its own belief).

I'm all for doing scientific research; but I also want to know the assumptions being made.

[Mike D'Virgilio]

There is a huge difference between science and scientism. They are in fact antithetical to one another. When you call out science or scientists that act as absolute infallible authority, you are not discounting science and the study of God's word, you are saving it!

Modern Americans have been programed that when the word "science" appears next to anything, it has unquestioned authority. And if you question science, especially when those questions relate to origins, climate, or medical issues, our cultural elites claim you are backward looking, Neanderthal troglodytes.

Many seem to forget that scientists are human beings, and thus susceptible to the same frailty and sin as the rest of us. The same temptations that afflict evil businessmen and bankers, afflict scientists as well, believe it or not. They can have selfish agendas, group think (i.e. "consensus"), petty grievances, etc., that all distort their work and claims.

I simply think we need to cast more of a jaundiced eye upon the proclamations of science when they make their claims with absolute certitude.

[Benjamin Ady]

The discussion here makes me incredibly grateful, again, that I attended a really high caliber University (UW Seattle). I came out of my undergraduate education much more prepared to gently question everything than when I went in. The best among my science profs were not only very smart and highly educated, they were also very curious and always questioning questioning questioning. We were taught and required to say "the evidence suggests ..." rather than stating things with certitude (well, excepting in hard math courses of course =). This has served me well, and made me a better listener and reader.