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
A Wonderful Post, Aurino

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Mario Dovalina on July 14, 2002 02:15:22 UTC

In reply to:


I agree. Scientific theories are always just theories, and always make some assumptions on the universe to make the theory work. On the other hand, this is the only method by which science can progress, and in the end replaces old, faulty placeholders with new, more effecient ones. The process will never end, but science, for me, has always been about the process, not the goal. It's a method of looking at life, but not the answer to it. The ultimate answer, I fear, we will never know.

I think you are too quick to jump down science's throat about this, though. After all, if you can propose a better system, do! Surely, there are hordes of scientists out there who take themselves and their theories far too seriously, but that, in my opinion, is a statement against those particular people, not the system that produced them. Science is not ideal, sure, but the universe we live in, and the situation we are forced to deal with, is far, far from being ideal. We work with what we've got. And if that means working off the assumption that evolutionary theory, big bang cosmology and so on are accurate, for the time being, then so be it. Eventually the theories will be upgraded, made more accurate, and humanity will be the better for it.

[i]***"That would indicate the system is random, but as a scientist I'm moved by the conviction that the universe is ruled by a logic which comes from some bigger picture, so I'll try harder. I'll assume there's another variable, 'x', whose value is unknown to me but can be discovered by inference. So I'll rewrite the system's function as f(a, x):

V = a - x

Using my new function I can infer that x = 1 in meas. #1 and x = 0 in meas. #2. Not only have I "proved" that the system's behavior is logical, I discovered a new entity 'x' whose value can be indirectly known and subject to rational study."***[i]

Well put, and that tied well into the issue of scientific theories, but not randomness. Put human knowledge completely out of the issue for now. It doesn't matter to me whether we know a system is random or not in the context of this discussion. I simply want to know is it theoretically POSSIBLE?

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 1994-2023 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