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
I Enjoyed Your Thoughts...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Bruce on July 30, 2003 01:11:10 UTC

but I differ here.
"True, they are the best on the planet when it comes to understanding models of nature, but the basis of that knowledge is often naive and often wrong. To get a better conceptual view you have to
study philosophy."

If a scientific theoretical model always makes accurate predictions for natural phenomena then it can't be naive or wrong. The concepts which an accurate model is based on may not be what you, as a philosopher, consider 'real' or 'true' but that was never the purpose of science to begin with.

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