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
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Getting Snippy?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on December 24, 2001 20:07:34 UTC

Hi Dick,

You sure get grumpy when issues such as these are raised. I am not belittling your intelligence, many philosophers disagree on the issues that we are discussing and so I don't feel giving my perspective in complete is belittling. If I have given you a feeling that I am trying to be an obscurantist or belittle your views than I apologize.

>>>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.>H: Errors are often more likely during inferences, especially if the wrong assumptions are held (e.g., the hearing aid battery is fully charged. D: So, then let us not make any; let us avoid anything which requires inference!>>Again, the issue under discussion here is, "I have one very simple point to make! Science has set as its goal to explain what is observed. I have presented a mental model which includes everything which is observed. My position is, that by doing so, I have not constrained science’s ability to explain anything. Do you or do you not accept that statement as logically correct?">You make the appearance of holding fast to the idea that, if a mental model includes *everything which is observed* and nothing more, it follows logically that the model constrains science’s ability to explain *everything which is observed*: i.e., in a nutshell, you are stating that knowing what is to be explained makes it impossible to explain it!

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 1994-2018 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