Back to Home

God & Science 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 | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Exactly What Is Your Point?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on December 24, 2001 17:51:46 UTC


You sure do enjoy muddying the waters don’t you. You insult my intelligence with almost every post you make. You continually bring up issues that only a child would have failed to consider. I thought our discourse could be a little more mature than that. I have been very careful not to insult your intelligence and it would be nice if you would be as kind to me. I can not really believe you think I am stupid enough to take the majority of your comments seriously. Most everything you bring up appears to me to be no more than an attempt to deflect attention from the central issue.

Most of your entire post is 100% beside the point! The original subject of this discussion concerned the issue that some aspects of current scientific reasoning might be circular! You deny this and then want to use the results of that reasoning to logically "prove" it is not circular. The argument can not and will not ever hold any water at all (and you have to be intelligent enough to know that). The only thing I can conclude is that you are so afraid of what I am saying that you can not allow any serious issues to be presented. You seem to be willing to grasp at any straw to avoid facing the fact that there might exist a possibility of error in modern science. From my perspective, that makes your position a religious position and I have no interest in discussing religion as it is not a field concerned with logic.

>>>Errors are often more likely during inferences, especially if the wrong assumptions are held (e.g., the hearing aid battery is fully charged.>but strong scientific inference leads us to believe that quarks exist - they are real (real meaning they are part of reality>No, I don't accept it. I think you are severly constraining what is a scientific observable. Scientific observables require inference in order to decide what is an observable, and in addition observables are only understood within a theory-laden structure.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 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