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
Too Bad, Indeed

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Paul R. Martin on May 13, 2002 15:45:07 UTC

Hi Harv,

***Their comments are perhaps the natural reaction that comes to mind when reading sophist physics, but it is a missed opportunity that they didn't become very specific in their reply.***

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "sophist" physics (you know how I am with isms) but I agree completely that it was a missed opportunity. However, I don't think the opportunity was really presented in the referenced post by Dick. I say that because I don't think a trained physicist could find the post credible without having studied Dick's paper in detail. The commenters dismissed Dick after reading the post only. The opportunity they missed was to read Dick's paper and either see the wisdom of the post, or discover an error in Dick's work and challenge him head-on.

From what little I know about Dick's work, I found this post to be a very enlightening summary of his discovery and some of its major implications. It was wonderful for me to read it because it is the best such summary I have read so far, and it is much better than I would have been able to piece together from the glimpses of his work I have been privileged to see so far.

***I don't imagine Dick's model will ever gain that kind of fame requiring real thorough responses,...***

I agree. I think this is the case because Dick's discovery is to sophisticated to appeal to any pre-conceived religious or mythological explanation of reality, as creationism has.

***but I think that such situations are real opportunities for Science to better explain itself to the public***

I agree with this also. Even more important, this situation is a real opportunity for Science to broaden its base of understanding of reality. It's a dirty shame that they are ignoring this golden opportunity.

***That is what I enjoy about Dick's 'model', it has an inherent misunderstanding of science,...***

Your apparent confidence in the certainty of this assertion is completely understandable when you consider the hold traditional ideas have on most people's imaginations.

***and the correction to that misunderstanding moves at the heart of science and its success.***

If there were a misunderstanding on Dick's part, its correction would undoubtedly move Dick, but I doubt it would have much affect on the heart of science and its success. On the other hand, if science were to find that there was no substantial error in Dick's work, then that realization would have a dramatic impact on the heart of science and its future success. It's too bad they won't deign to look at it closely enough to settle the question.

***Of course, a correction to Dick's approach will never convince an Aurino (who like Dick is pretty much sold on their own misguidings).***

If Science would only produce a case showing a need for such a "correction", we would also find out whether this assertion of yours is true or false. Until then, I guess we each hold our own positions for our own reasons.

Warm regards,

Paul

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