Will scientific theories ever match reality exactly?
961254
No because when they do they become scientific LAWS\n\ne.g. the Law of Gravity
98337
advancement in science can never stop(till the earth survives).we can only get closer never reach a perfect theory.
886109
No. I say you are exactly right. There's no science in intelligent design. So it can't be a scientific theory. Sorry ID believers - there's just no process of discovery in your belief.
510120
Currently, we conclusively know of no such thing.  The majority of the scientific community thinks it unprobable that there ever was such a thing.\n\nIt is not an entirley impossible concept.  We see stranger things in nature.
163297
it has to ......all physics stuff is inter-related\n\n1. time, space\n2. uncertainity principle, particle wave\n3. laws of motion \n\nlogic works...and does not break down in any situation.\n\nits the knowledge, awareness, ability to imagine ...thoose are the limiting factor(s).\n\nour reality does not "change" in a sense but gets "refined".\n\nthere will be more changes to our view of reality.\n\nagain depends upon what you mean by "change"\n\nfor example uncertainity principle is not due to "instrument measurement" issues but do to the fact that the question is not proper.....yet some text books still use "instrument measurement" issues....and Einstein proved that wrong......many many years ago.\n\n\nthere are two equations built 1) by riding the particle 2) observing the particle from a bit far
1053858
So far, the laws of nature have been constant wherever we look. This includes astronomical observations of events long ago and far away. Therefore, the assumption that the laws do not change is a reasonable one and is generally accepted. If you want to argue otherwise, you need to specify what laws you think were different, in what way, and how could we tell. Otherwise, your argument is no better than "science doesn't know everything; therefore, pigs can fly".
1136179
An interesting question.  \n\n#1 would seem at first glance to be automatically false, as everyone will agree that there is evidence that there was a time when the things we see today in nature, did not exist.  But to get a little deeper, what if these things are the natural products of natural laws that have always existed?  E.g. what if our universe is just one of an endless series of universes that appear, unfold under natural laws that have been in existence for eternity, and then disappear, only to get reborn again as a new universe?\n\n#2 is the *goal* of a scientific explanation.  I.e. to see how much we can explain by the discovery of natural laws.  Science has no way of knowing if such an explanation will always be possible, but it has to try.  And so far we have done remarkably well ... almost everything we see in nature can be explained in terms of the operation of natural laws.  And natural laws can often be shown to derivable from simpler natural laws.  (E.g., that's why physicists are on a quest to unify the four forces of physics ... so that all laws of atomic physics can be derived from a single law.)  However, scientists will always be faced with the question of where these simplest of natural laws came from.  And they may have to settle for the answer "they seem to have always been there", which brings us back to #1.\n\n#3, and #4 need more definitions to distinguish them.  What do you mean by phrases like "beyond nature", and "intelligence."  \n\nHOWEVER, despite being a died-in-the-wool evolutionist, I lean towards #4, (an intelligent, supernatural origin for all things in nature) but not with in the same sense as Intelligent Design.  I *don't* believe some intelligence designed every cell membrane, every flagellum, every eyeball, every bird, bat, or insect wing, every endochrine cycle, etc.  Evolution provides a far more satisfactory explanation for all those things based on such simple natural laws as the law of natural selection.  \n\nBut I do wonder where that force of natural selection, as a natural law, came from.   I believe it will be shown to be derivable from simpler laws of chemistry and thermodynamics, which can be derived from even simpler laws of physics.  But ultimately, we will still be faced with wondering where those primary laws of physics came from.
317598
Yes It coud be true.\nI doesn't have an experience of that but I seen one programme on discovery channel regarding it and I truely believe it.
37661
One of the characteristics of any scientific hypothesis is that it is refutable. That is, once you propose a conjecture (as Popper called them), it's not the facts that support your hypothesis what matters, but rather the facts that refute it. You may have accumulated any number of favorable data, but any new data that contradict the original proposal will lead to its reexamination, discussion, correction and/or rejection.\nSo yes, any hypothesis should be refutable. That does not mean that it WILL be refuted! \nThe theory of evolution by means of natural selection is not a single hypothesis but rather a group of interrelated statements. None of them have been refuted by evidence.
589476
The theories could very well be true, unless proven otherwise. If you are looking at it from the theological point of view, then consider this:\n\nThe original ingredients for the single cellular organism from which all life on earth originated must have been placed there by some greater power. Maybe from time to time that power guided evolution to humanity, and maybe later that power will guide evolution to some beings better than us?
693179
according to string-theory other universes do exist in what is called a "landscape of probabilities", but the probability of one being parallel as in just like ours, is extremely low.\n\nand 60 words are way too few to explain that, so try to be realistic next-time.
770229
All you can say is that that's as real as real gets.  And we can never know if we are enslaved in magic electro brain slave helmets or not.  Maybe this is all a dream?  Maybe there is a teapot orbiting mars.  Has anyone ever looked close enough?\n\nThe point is you can never be 100% sure of anything.  The trick is to find out how to get as close to 100% as possible.  There are some things that are useful to consider and others that are not.  Those that are undetectable and arbitrary and untestable may be interesting to consider for fun but have little use in the "realer" world.\n\nBertrand Russell and Daniel Dennett have a lot to say about philosophy that might interest you.  http://plato.stanford.edu/ is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
201375
I do not believe there will be any "discoveries" for some time... in Physics, the theory is generally proposed first and then the emperical data is gathered to prove or disprove it, and the theory still has a way to go...
131974
nice theory will it work? logic is there
1160982
Science is false until proven true.
103296
Relativly speaking, it appears to be if you know how to do the math, but until somebody actually manages to accelerate themself to the speed of light and lives to tell what it was like, nobody will ever know for sure.
101623
What does it mean to be "true"? The quantum theory (I suppose that's what you're asking about) can explain a lot of physical experiments, so, up to a certain extent, it has been proven true. It is also the truest physical theory for small scales up to today.\nScience isn't about finding absolute truths, it's about providing a description of reality that suits your needs. Take newton's gravity laws for example: while proven false in absolute by einstein's relativity, they are still really useful and tought in many places.\nOf course the goal is to one day provide a theory (a description of reality, not "a guess") that explains everything, but for now that's still a dream.