blastingas10

True, but I didn't really mean it in that context. Today, scientists believe they are on the verge of having the theory of everything - String theory and M-theory. Some scientists start to believe that they've finally got it figured out and the conclusion can be drawn. Others aren't so arrogant. And it's those others who go on to make more discoveries that challange the current thinking of the scientists who believe they've got a definitive answer.

For example, most scientists are sure that there is no god and life is just an act of chance. At a scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an unexpected question: "Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?" Herbert A. Hauptman, who shared the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1985 for his work on the structure of crystals , quickly answered "No!"

On the other hand, you have scientists like Roger Penrose, who shared the Wolf Prize in physics with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.

To quote Mr. Penrose: ""I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along–it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it."

As Penrose said, some people take the view that the universe is just there, and it just happened by chance. A lot of people who think that tend to draw the conclusion there. However, you have people, like Penrose, who think that there is something much deeper about life. And it's those people who don't arrogantly conclude that continue to push the envelope, rather than sealing it and moving on.