Will science ever know everything?

^^  A lot of people who complain about science don't really understand it or the scientific method.  Science does not deal with proof, it deals with evidence and presents tentative models for better understanding how things work.

In science, it's about evidence as there is no proof (proof is used in logic, mathematics and law). It's not a closed system and every theory is open to questioning, adaptation or scrapping when new evidence comes to light. Science is about trying to understand how the universe works, but it shouldn't be making absolute truth claims as everything is open to reevaluation.  Hypotheses, theories and claims are provisional and tentative; they are subject to change.  One tries to present the best models. And the scientific method deals with that which is falsifiable, in other words that which could be proven "wrong". Of course I said In science there is no proof, but at the same time mathematics and logic are incorporated.   A less confusing way to put it might be to say "could be demonstrated"or "shown" rather than "proven" (rather too depends on what one means by proof, as well as what constitutes evidence, and wrong can be a tricky word...).

I don't believe anything with absolute certainty, and I prefer not to believe things without what I think are good reasons to believe in them.  I am a sceptic.  I don't claim to know what is possible or true in regards to many things.  I studied philosophy far more than science, and I like this from Plato, paraphrased, "The first step on the road to wisdom is the recognition of one's own ignorance."

Those who dismiss science because it can't answer everything, nor does it deal with everything, I think are rather missing the point and beauty of science. 

The possibility of god or any kind of "supreme being"

Ufos and the possibility of alien life ever visiting this planet

Ghosts

Life after death/the after life (also past lives, future lives etc)

Big foot, lochness monster or any other unexplained phenomena

All I'm saying is that imo science does not and cannot explain everything. If you look back in history there was a time when people thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth etc. Science has caught up to those things and it's likely it will catch up to other things we don't have scientific evidence for. I am a fan of science. I like science. However, I also try to keep an open mind with things.

Geeeee ... Einstein read THE BARDO?

 

These are all good quotes, but nothing suggests that any of this CANNOT be known, only that it is not known at the present time.

 

It would still be possible to envisage a future time when these questions have been answered.

"New physics may be needed to rectify the universe's past and present behavior."

"Something is amiss in astronomers' efforts to measure the past and predict the present, according to a discrepancy between the two main techniques for measuring the universe's expansion rate – a key to understanding its history and physical parameters."

"Theorists must find an explanation for the disparity that could rattle ideas about the very underpinnings of the universe."

"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope say they have crossed an important threshold in revealing a discrepancy between the two key techniques for measuring the universe's expansion rate. The recent study strengthens the case that new theories may be needed to explain the forces that have shaped the cosmos."

"These most precise Hubble measurements to date bolster the idea that new physics may be needed to explain the mismatch. "

"The Hubble tension between the early and late universe may be the most exciting development in cosmology in decades," said lead researcher and Nobel laureate Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) and Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, Maryland. "This mismatch has been growing and has now reached a point that is really impossible to dismiss as a fluke. This disparity could not plausibly occur just by chance."

"This is not just two experiments disagreeing," Riess explained. "We are measuring something fundamentally different. One is a measurement of how fast the universe is expanding today, as we see it. The other is a prediction based on the physics of the early universe and on measurements of how fast it ought to be expanding. If these values don't agree, there becomes a very strong likelihood that we're missing something in the cosmological model that connects the two eras."

.

.... or religions don't want you to talk about ....