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
'By Guess And By Golly' Vs. What?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Mario Dovalina on July 27, 2001 19:05:48 UTC

To Dick, or to any of Dick's acolytes:

You seem disgusted with the current scientific process: any currently accepted claim is thought of as "It's the best thing so far" and is treated as true until something better comes along. (as Harv said, trial and error.) What's wrong with this process? As long as one recognizes that scientific truth is not 100% accurate, trial and error is the only way I can see to progress.

And I very much doubt any serious scientist believes "This is all there is, science has reached its pinnacle of accuracy." I mean, quantum physics and relativity can't both be right, for example, but scientists don't say "We might as well give up, I'm burning my Phd on quantum physics right now." Do you think they should? Or should they use quantum mechanics and relativity to the extent of their reach for the time being until someone comes out with a newer, more accurate theory?

You've spent a lot of time attacking the by guess and by golly method, but what is your alternative? Maybe I missed it.

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