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
More Wood To The Fire!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on June 26, 2001 18:45:09 UTC

Harv,

>>> for the sake of everyone's sanity it is best to use words as they are traditionally defined. Wouldn't the subconscious only think in mathematical terms? There is a difference. In epistemology ... >my conscious mind that says that I won't do it>I can acknowledge the possibility of *all* my perceptions as false, but it seems more consistent of a picture based on all the details that I am aware that this would be a flawed way of perceiving the world.>This is not to say that all subconscious perceptions are reliable, but we use the extensive reliability of our perceptions as a base by which to do some error checking by our cognitive skills. >This is very close to what Alex claims but not exactly. What he states is presented as a authoritative proclamation without real defense. The way I see it, what he says is equivalent to the following: my (that is Alex's) mental model of reality contains the concept that everything is derived from mathematics and if your mental model of reality doesn't contain this concept then your mental model is wrong! I hope you can understand the difference between what he is saying and what I am saying.>Are you suggesting that experiment is no longer *the* driving force behind good science?>The models of science are mainly justified on empirical success.you must ask where does any kind of semi-objective knowledge come from?> if the interpretation of your model is correct.>What about uncomputable numbers? >>Of course, that is not a periodical review process! >reliable means to interpret the meaning of A.B.C. (or G.O.D.), is not based on any foundation.>- only true within the realm of mathematics.>In short, your interpreted model that we cannot justify our knowledge based on our subconscious perceptions is itself justified by subconscious perceptions.

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