What? Of course it is! There are physicists looking for the unified theory who hypothesize that there may be a unified way of understanding all the forces. IANA physicist by any stretch so maybe I've misunderstood the Great Courses and books I've read, but gravity is actually quite poorly understood to us currently.
But the broader point about things not being open for debate is dangerous, and I think you unintentionally demonstrated a real-life reason why. If we stop questioning gravity and trying to understand it's cause better (which IMHO primiarly happens through reasoned, intelligent debate) then we stagnate, and stagnation can be dangerous as from there it's a short hop and a skip to regression.
If you want to make the argument though that some things aren't open for debate, I think there are stronger cases, like the Cartesian "I think therefore I am" is hard (though not impossible) to argue against because it forces the thinker to make arguments for their own non-existence, which is a tall order for a person who by definition must exist in order to do so.
Gravity isn't understood, but it exists as a force regardless. We know it does, no one debates it does, but whatever we _call_ it might change, and how we understand it will inevitably change.
That was my point. Gravity as a force exists, but the understanding of that force is still being developed. We might even change the name, but there is no doubt the force exists.
I should have worded it better. Extrapolating from that is probably not achieving much.
Ah fair, I do see your point on a difference between existence and understanding. Though, some of the theories I've heard basically posit that gravity doesn't really "exist" in any sense that we have of it now, but is rather just an exposed slice of some higher dimensional reality that we can't experience entirely. But, to your point, something obviously exists there because it's measurable, repeatable, etc, so from that perspective nobody is questioning it's existence.
Also what came to mind was picturing Einstein doing his thought experiment where he was in an elevator at various levels of acceleration, and his observation that there was no way to tell the difference between the force felt from gravity vs. the acceleration. That to me feels a lot like quesitoning the "existence" of gravity! But I don't think we're really disagreeing, more were just operating with different definitions in mind of "existence."
What? Of course it is! There are physicists looking for the unified theory who hypothesize that there may be a unified way of understanding all the forces. IANA physicist by any stretch so maybe I've misunderstood the Great Courses and books I've read, but gravity is actually quite poorly understood to us currently.
But the broader point about things not being open for debate is dangerous, and I think you unintentionally demonstrated a real-life reason why. If we stop questioning gravity and trying to understand it's cause better (which IMHO primiarly happens through reasoned, intelligent debate) then we stagnate, and stagnation can be dangerous as from there it's a short hop and a skip to regression.
If you want to make the argument though that some things aren't open for debate, I think there are stronger cases, like the Cartesian "I think therefore I am" is hard (though not impossible) to argue against because it forces the thinker to make arguments for their own non-existence, which is a tall order for a person who by definition must exist in order to do so.