What can science not explain?

endacl wrote: »

What's an intensive porpoise?!?

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvfafaxqNh1qcofn4o1_500.png

How Adam Sandler is still making movies!

I considered several of the so-called mysteries from the first few pages, most of which I had some general idea of the science behind, and mostly wondered if science could ever explain why kneemos' threads.

I'll admit I didn't think too much on it when it got into black holes and string theory, not least since I had the sneaking suspicion that the people talking about them didn't understand them that much more than I do (i.e. I've heard of them and have probably read enough first paragraphs of magazine articles to be able to bull**** a one-sentence explanation of them )

Edit: Rereading Roy Palmer's post there, yeah, you've got a solid point there, although there's an element of people misusing of the word "science". What does one MEAN (yes, I know I used it myself up there, but I was being sardonic) by "science explains". Science is ...information and theories gathered from a set of standardised, observable, repeatable methods - i.e. the scientific method. In general, "science" is used on definable things and processes, as you say. Intangible "things"; emotions, how and why people think, that sort of thing is much harder to quantify. Certain elements of the scientific method can be used to theorise about them, and gain support from what can be "measured" - brain processes for instance, observable evidence of evolutionarily helpful modes, but there's a reason they're called the "soft sciences". They're a bit more blurry.

12Phase wrote: »

Why cats always land on their feet.

Seriously, scientists who have tried have been hissed at and very badly scratched...

There has been some tentative yet serious research into this very important field.

Here are the facts as we know them so far.



lol, look at the dude's face

Steve012 wrote: »

Maybe we did, and they probably breed with modern day humans.

Oh I've no doubt we interbred as up to 2% of our DNA is Neantherdal DNA.
It's funny how we thrived and they vanished. I've seen multiple theories from us wiping them out to the fact they could not harness fire so couldn't get the calories from food or avoid disease.

It's just scientists can't agree what exactly happened.

Steve012 wrote: »

With no offence intended , Dane's, Norwegians, North German's, eh..
I think they harnessed fire alright.

As I am neither Dane, Norwegian nor North German no offence was taken.

brevity wrote: »

What happens to the other sock.

Have you not seen monsters inc?

whatawaster81 wrote: »

Oh I've no doubt we interbred as up to 2% of our DNA is Neantherdal DNA.
It's funny how we thrived and they vanished. I've seen multiple theories from us wiping them out to the fact they could not harness fire so couldn't get the calories from food or avoid disease.

It's just scientists can't agree what exactly happened.

Neanderthals had fire, by many accounts they were at least as sophisticated as humans and had bigger brains. They're problem is they didn't trade or socialise outside of their own familiar group. Two groups of humans could come across each other and would probably have a meal together, do some trading, maybe swap some members and go about their merry way. If neanderthals were like most other animals on this planet when they came across another group of neanderthals they probably started fighting each other.

Vinculus wrote: »

Was the big bang the first big bang or was there other big bangs before that big bang?

There is no 'before' the big bang. Time begins at the moment of the big bang, and just like you can't go South from the South pole, you can't go before the big bang.

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Lolz I think you've got it backwards, upside down and inside out.
You don't have to be an Anthropology Professor to see it's humans who have a need to fight with each other, not "animals".

If you compare humans to every other animal what stands out is that we don't fight nearly as often as other animals, when was the last time you got into a fight? We need to be inhibreated before there's any real danger of fighting for prowess. There's 20 million people living in London and getting along on a daily basis. It's hard to get two dogs to walk past each other on the street.

When we do fight it's on a massive level but outside of war there's very little violence in your average human community. War gives a totally skewed image of humans acceptance of violence. Outside of war we're even nice to the animal we kill and eat.