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
Not To Beat A Dead Horse

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on June 5, 2003 13:09:33 UTC

but the method of science is for anyone, anytime to count the gold in Fort Knox. If we are not able to do that, then it is not reliable science.

Mathematics is the most reliable aspect of science. We all agree on a basic number system that controls our commerce and our checkbook.

But as science is pushing further and further into the unknown, it is becoming less reliable: first in the sense that only well educated specialized practictioners have the right to examine the gold; and secondly the process of examination itself is no longer completely minimizing the pipeline effects.

In math we see this trend in the treatment of infinity and in Godel's incompleteness theorem.

As we come to understand more and more, we often come to understand that our understanding is not as reliable as first believed. Often that is used to reject even reliable science. So I say keep your faith in numbers. They transcend language and belief.

This message is brought to you by

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 1994-2018 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