**We are a constellation of stars to die for and to be reborn.** [Photo by pixabay](https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2017/08/24/03/41/milky-way-2675322_1280.jpg) ![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmSukxBFFkvzL59jZniSkMqdWM8eFnsCLvmqVPXh8FaaGa/image.png) # The science that just wants to understand everything.

Most human beings are only based on understanding the basics of life, without more or less, but there are some who seek to go beyond what is understandable. **And what is understandable to us?** * The basics? * The ordinary? * What's already structured? However, all these formulations that I have mentioned above have a certain peculiarity, since they are all based on simple science, that is to say, that which is only in charge of giving concepts to be able to understand in an "easier" way the particular things of life. Now, the cosmos is a science that goes beyond what is stipulated, that seeks to enter into the foundations of science itself in order to bring to light those aspects that are not so visible to human understanding, simply for the reason that the cosmos does not want us to be basic, but that we understand that our mission here in life is to develop more and more the artifices of life.

![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmfLUnyMSV9Vj94nZusMgPm4r2oinojSNsHL1HU6wgXEf4/image.png) Man and the cosmos [Photo by pixabay](https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2015/05/02/09/13/planet-749673_960_720.jpg)

### Science - No Science. Everything that makes up the cosmos is science, we are science, a plant is science, oxygen is science, talking is a science, I believe that with that it is more than understandable that science is everything that surrounds us, it is how oxygen is present in all places. But why do some people say there's a non-science? That is for the simple reason that science wants to be contradicted, the cosmos itself contradicts itself in order to find a balance in the more technical foundations of science. Even so, the cosmos is based on very solid arguments, such as mathematics and physics, and it is because they are pure and exact sciences that allow for a universality of the science of the cosmos, whether philosophically, sociologically or scientifically.

# Social scientific analysis by @arcabuzx.

Since I began to see the cosmos as a whole within nothingness and a nothingness within the whole, I drew my own conclusions or rather my own theory, which is as follows. * Since ancient times, science has perhaps been criticized for many reasons, either because of the inaccuracy of some of its theories or simply because of its ability to make its arguments unclear. This happens, mainly because we have been seeing science as an entity of the cosmos, that same cosmos comprises many branches, which are, mathematics, philosophy, anthropology and physics. All of them are an absolute compendium of the cosmos, which is perhaps the first common problem we have. * Therefore, we need a new structure that can be understood, I do not want to say that it is something simplistic, since I am not part of the simple, but rather, a structure that goes from being and deepens in stages, I place a transitory example, that speaks of the theory of ideas, but from the topics of the philosophical, anthropological, sociological and physical cosmos. This will give a wider projection and at the same time will work with a very cosmological vision of science. * Now we come to the last step, which is institutionalization, conformity and social control. These which I call barricades to counter a true revolution of the cosmos, are only ornaments for the structuring of society, in short, to keep humanity under control and in one lane. There have been many experiments such as the one done by Harvard and Radcliffe College (1949), where they showed that institutionalizing standards is effective in generating compliance in people. And if we look at it from a purely philosophical point of view, we are in the wrong, the sciences cannot generate conformity, they must generate an insatiable hunger for knowledge, so that in the constant evolution of history, there are no prejudices and even less problems for the new generation. > I hope that in this second part, you have been able to clarify a little more about the cosmos as a science, and that this theory is something that can bring debate and help other academics in the area.

[Reference to the ancient age of the cosmos.](https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/ancient-cosmos) [Reference on the philosophical cosmos.](https://cosmosmagazine.com/society/scientist-s-philosopher) [References to my theories](https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Social-Psych-Ch22.pdf) [Part 1](https://steemit.com/steemstem/@arcabuzx/social-scientific-analysis-of-the-cosmos-part-1)