Happy Halloween

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
Harv

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Tim on September 24, 2003 22:28:03 UTC

thanks for bringing it up top, it was getting kind of painful trying to find the string.

i don't think that Dr. Dick is saying that there are two kinds of knowledge.i found it interesting when my son came home from his first day of college today and told me that his algebra professor expects him to not only provide correct answers to problems but also be able to explain the the answer. the professor
justified this by stating that you don't really understand something if you can't explain it. when my son told me this it struck me that what the professor is requesting of him is to provide unknowable data along with the answer to the
problem. well anyway, i think what Dr. Dick is saying is that knowledge is really unknowable data. knowable data constitutes what is real.
so if i'm right Harv then your whole 10 questions exercise is for not because
any answer given falls into the unknowable data range.

i kind of like this for a definition of the word theory:
a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles
offered to explain phenomena .
Harv, you insist that what Dr. Dick is offering is a theory. do you think it is plausible or scientifically acceptable? the definition i offered is out of the dictionary.

i dunno Harv, when i think of a quack i think of someone who purposely puts forth invalid information shrouded in such a way as to make it appear valid. i just don't for a minute believe Dr. Dick is that type of person.

sorry Harv, in my case it doesn't look good just because Dr. Dick was able to use his work to come up with the same results as the giants of scientific genius of the past. actually i've only skimmed the chapters that relate any information with respect to the derivation of physics. again sir the work that i've reviewed
in chapter one of Foundations of Physical Reality looks good to me because it makes sense to me. i like the concepts of knowable data and unknowable data and have found them personally useful when confronted with real world problems. i like the concept that reality is a set of numbers and that the behavior of absolutely any collection of things may be explained by the rule F=0. i believe these concepts are generaly useful when one sets out to solve a problem using the scientific method. it provides a platform to start from when confronted with
the bewildering thing we call reality.

regards, tim

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 1994-2020 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