If science keeps revising its explanations, how can we know whether today’s scientific theories are actually “true”?
What is the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory—and when should we trust either one?
In science, which usually comes first: an idea that scientists want to test, or an experiment that leads to a new idea?
Could a living human being, in principle, be completely explained as an extremely complicated physical and chemical machine?
When scientists classify animals and plants into different groups, are they discovering categories that already exist in nature, or creating categories that are useful for humans?
Are things like atoms, elements, and electrons truly “real,” even though we cannot directly see them, or are they simply useful models for explaining observations?
Are we actually living as ourselves, or simply playing the roles the world has assigned us?
I began asking myself this question years ago after I finished reading the book Sophie’s World. I wondered how much of our identities is shaped by family, society, and knowledge, in other words, past experiences. I treated every person in this world as dot with properties, and infinite many links are bounded in between, forming relationship and forming flow of knowledge.
I founded Because of the Stars to bring together people who share a curiosity about the world and bridge connection between natural sciences we learned and philosophy. In the club, I hope we can question what we take for granted, challenge one another's ideas, and discover our own perspectives.
To me, philosophy isn't about finding a single correct way to live. It's about having the courage to ask what genuinely matters to us.
— Steven Tian, Founder
Steven
Michael
Cervine
Jacky
Zephyr
Ethan
Yin
Emma
Tony
Paul
Richard
Cole
Baran
Willam
Samuel
The Inspiration of Star Trails: A Journey from Myth to Science
Gene Is DNA
Origin of Science and Science as a Religion
Physics Meets Medicine
Coming Soon！
Coming Soon！
Coming Soon！
