Back to Home

General Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Misc. Topics | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
That Is Very Simple To Answer!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on December 30, 2004 18:10:44 UTC

The elements of A are an important part of an explanation but, being able to model A, is not to be able to model an explanation. A is nothing more then information, as such, A need not be an explanation. A model of an explanation must also provide a method of establishing one's expectations. Thus we have another very important aspect of an explanation to include in the model I am trying to build here.

You have perhaps read some of my exchanges with Harv. What is significant in that exchange is that A itself could be an explanation (explanations are just another form of information). That leads to a very significant insight which we can discuss after you understand my model of an explanation.

I get a very distinct feeling that you are reading this carefully with thought and I thank you very much.

Dick

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins