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
...but What??

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Paul R. Martin on May 1, 2001 18:16:41 UTC

Hi Harv,

>>>Whether you are the "apostle Paul" for his paper I'll leave it for you to decide>>However, couldn't we just randomly pick any model and say 'this represents reality'? Astrologers do this all the time.>Hilary Putnam, I believe, showed that it is possible to create an infinite number of theories to explain a finite amount of observables.>but in terms of science I don't see how [Dick's discovery] can lead to any new scientific breakthroughs (e.g., predictions of observable phenomena yet to be observed). It doesn't strike me as a theory per se, but simply as a way of interpreting theory

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