To clarify, I mean 'know' as in completely certain.
Most people don't equate knowledge with absolute knowledge.The common definition of knowledge is "justified true belief" (Gettier problems aside). Are you saying that I can't know that gravity is always a downward force? Every observation is a data point, and holds much probabilistic force. You don't have any justification for concluding that gravity is
an upward force. You can say that it's possible, but that doesn't mean that the mere fact of it being possible makes it probable or even remotely probable.
And to be honest, in a way I DON'T think that we 'know' more than we did 100 years ago. Or even 1000 years ago.
Earth is round, and not the center of the universe. The universe is 13 to 14 billion years old. Evolution is the origin of species, with natural selection as the mechanism.
These are things that are known a posteriori
, or through evidence. If the only knowledge you'll accept are a priori
, absolutely true knowledge, then you'll have a very small set of known propositions. I would argue that you have none, so absolute knowledge isn't even a type of knowledge - they're exclusive.
Science, in my opinion, can't prove anything. It can only make educated guesswork.
Again, this conflates the idea of "proof" to something only a priori
. Do you need to prove a priori
and absolutely that OJ killed his wife? No, you can present evidence to build up to a proof. Proof can be through induction as well as deduction.
If I drop a ball 100 times and it falls downward each time, I can't be entirely sure that it will fall the same direction the 101st time. All practical reason and common sense would tell me that it will, but there will always be the doubt of reason.
See above. You have no justification for concluding that it'll fall in a different direction.
My main problem with science, even though I will admit that it's useful, is that it's always too sure of itself. People hear "scientifically proven" and they automatically accept it as absolute fact.
I think this is more of a problem with people who dogmatically accept anything that science tells them. You didn't point to the methodology of science and say where it tricks people into thinking that it's absolute knowledge, you pointed to what people think.
At times I almost think that science will never make any form of progress at life's tough questions in the long run.
That's because life's "tough questions" are not answered by science. Science can't tell you what the best flavor of ice cream is, as long as it's subjective, as well as other questions answered by philosophy. You can't use a screwdriver (in the way it was intended) to write on paper. Science isn't meant to answer questions that philosophy answers.
Who's to say that, in 500 years, everything we think we know now won't be completely disproven and that people will look back and think "How stupid were these guys to think that diseases were caused by virus's and bacteria?"
This is highly improbable. The evidence is so vastly in our favor that the probability of us being so completely wrong is almost 0. I drive my car every day to school and back. One day, I may discover that it was really a truck and that every time I looked, all of the millions of photons that enter my eye when perceiving it were somehow switched around.
That's not very probable, and you don't have very good grounds for concluding that.