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
Round And Round We Go

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on March 29, 2002 15:22:55 UTC


***I know that Harv! I have a very good understanding (in fact probably better than your understanding) of exactly how science proceeds.***

I would be very disappointed in you if you didn't know more than me about it. However, for the sake of everyone reading, it is better to just state my whole view so that any agreements or disagreements are seen in their proper context. If possible, let's just agree that neither of us is condensending to the other. We are simply stating our case (most of which is redundant). I know you know a great deal - I have a great deal of respect for you.

***If you would look at the procedure instead of just holding forth that "authorities never make stupid mistakes" and you might learn something.***

I could care less what the authorities think unless it appears to be well-grounded. It just so happens that to be an authority in academia usually means making some good choices. I know you don't buy into that, but my view is that a great deal of rationality is associated with the leading philosophers of science. Some of them I don't care to accept their arguments (e.g., van Fraasen), but I admire the excellent arguments that come from such people. I was criticized by one individual for saying that Weinberg said something obtuse. I have no problem making that kind of statement if I think it is true.

***What you miss is that I have looked at that process and conceived of a way of setting it down as an abstract procedure, including the need for verification. Once that is done, a lot of dead end ideas become quite obvious!...Try criticizing my steps instead of where you think I am going!

Okay, I criticize the step of abstraction from physical statements (i.e., sense impression become undefined data) and then translating back to physical statements (i.e., your conclusion about the kind of limitations that exist). I think abstraction is unwarranted unless you can use it as a tool. But, whatever abstraction you invent, this is still a tool. The tool must be useful or it is unnecessary (btw, I forget that criticism in my last post on my summary of criticisms).

Warm regards, Harv

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