In a lecture today on the possibility that physics can provide valuable, genuine knowledge about the world, two people sit and listen intently. Both people think deeply about their theories on the subject. One, David Hume, shakes his head in total denial. While most conference participants agree that physics can indeed provide genuine knowledge, he argues that physics and mathematics provide absolutely nothing. Indeed, he thinks to himself, only things that can be broken down into various sense impressions provide true knowledge, and since mathematics and science cannot (especially since they rely on causal relationships), they are essentially a waste of time. Across the room is Emmanuel Kant. At certain moments during the conference he shakes his head in approval; but in others he has a questioning, almost uncertain look, and gently shakes his head to the side. Many at the conference neglect to discuss the topic of sensory impressions, seemingly taking their beliefs for granted. Kant, on the other hand, like Hume, believes that sense impressions are how we understand the world. However, unlike Hume, our mind shapes the world with these impressions; the mind organizes sensations, transforms them into objects. After all, sensations cannot organize themselves, yet humans constantly see a variety of sensory impressions as physical objects. During a break in the lecture, both Hume and Kant take a walk to regenerate their minds. Incidentally, they clash. Both being intellectuals, they decide to engage in an informal conversation on the topic themselves. Since the walk is short, they decide to give each other a chance to explain their thoughts and convince the other. F...... half of the paper... provide genuine knowledge since these laws must apply to all objects. Therefore, I cannot agree with your conclusion, even if part of your theory is solid. "Immediately after this conversation the two return to the conference. Many decades later, further conferences still debate the value of physics and further questions are raised that would require both Hume and Kant to revise their arguments in order to address various issues. These include falls into the fact that physics is slowly moving away from certainty and universality. Instead, it is becoming based on probability, even though many probabilities are astronomically high. Furthermore, now that we can detect energy transfer, Hume's argument on the causality is no longer so strong. Finally, if physics and other sciences do not possess genuine knowledge, how can we apply the sciences to imagine, detect and create new objects.??