> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems
>
> In science,
> we don't know for sure.
>

> In article > @l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, junker...@gmail.com says...
>

>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems

>

>> In science,
>> we don't know for sure.

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_philosophy
> "This article deals mainly with unsolved problems in analytic
> philosophy. For other schools of philosophy, this concept is not well
> defined."
>
> see, philosophers admit that analysis isnt the only efficient way to
> look at heavens.
>
> --
> l'alchimie pour les nuls:http://www.divshare.com/download/849034-e1c

>
> Philosophy isn't a science! There is only one world and one road of
> truth. It is built into the nature of the Main road. However, people
> who need to bypass society or psychology or science in school don't
> really add to the facts that will exist even on other planets.

> "boson boss" gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c67f6a2d-b5c8-438b-b1d3-34df87c5e466@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>

>> Philosophy isn't a science! There is only one world and one road of
>> truth. It is built into the nature of the Main road. However, people
>> who need to bypass society or psychology or science in school don't
>> really add to the facts that will exist even on other planets.

>
> I hope that you can refrain from provoking a police officer to shoot you in
> the leg, too.

> On Feb 14, 2:28 am, quintal wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> In article >> @l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, junker...@gmail.com says...

>

>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems

>

>>> In science,
>>> we don't know for sure.

>

>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_philosophy
>> "This article deals mainly with unsolved problems in analytic
>> philosophy. For other schools of philosophy, this concept is not well
>> defined."

> ...

>
> unless our particular habits of physics are purely a local phenomenon.

> I mean we started with newton and then einstein gave us relativity of
> space-time, who knows what genius will arise with a new model blowing
> our presently messy but functional science out of the proverbial
> waters,

> "Janine Starscream" yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7b4a9249-75d6-4c1c-af35-c0cde7e2a5cf@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
> Is there any evidence that they are?  I mean besides the occasional wild
> speculation?

>On Feb 16, 8:17 pm, "Tom" comcast.net> wrote:

>> "Janine Starscream" yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:7b4a9249-75d6-4c1c-af35-c0cde7e2a5cf@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Is there any evidence that they are? I mean besides the occasional wild
>> speculation?

>
> all we see are OLD galaxies, far as I know we've never gotten our kind
> beyond the damned moon, build extrapolations based on energetic
> evidence in the spectrums we know how to research, and are basing it
> all on the idea that third-order chimpanzees like ourselves can get it
> right in the first place. Which we can only ever do in a relative and
> generally rather stupid fashion. Science is better than religion for a
> lot of reasons, most of them having to do with cutting the crap and
> creating convienience at hopefully low cost, but like any human
> endeavor it's limited by the humans that pursue it. They may be smart
> but that doesn't mean they have good sense. Generally Nerds are idiot ...