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
Let's Say You Do Not Express My Ideas Accurately!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on July 31, 2001 20:01:56 UTC

Harv,

How many times have I said that I present no theory? What I simply present is a way of rationally setting things up so that we can be assured that a theory (any theory) presented from that perspective is at least internally self consistent. That seems to me to be a worth while goal as, from what I can see of the historical process, the overwhelming source of scientific breakthroughs arise directly from a realization that something previously assumed to be valid turned out to be an undefendable assumption.

Can we set up an analysis of arbitrary information such that we can guarantee no assumptions have been made. I think yes -- I have set up such a procedure. Only recently have I been informed that I had been talking "philosophy" and not science. So I say OK, if it is philosophy than perhaps the philosophers are interested. I think what you are telling me is that, what I have to offer is not in the field of philosophy nor in the field of science so I suppose it is in the field of masturbation.

>>> because there is always the possibility that our observations are not the whole matter, but the more quantity of confirmed predictions of S the more likely S is true]. If you don't agree, then what makes a statement S considered to be true or probably true?>Anti-realism doesn't deny ... , rather [denies] that humans have the ability to construct an exact picture (or state of affairs) using theories. >Aren't you then basing your model (which is not a theory but a framework to view all theories) as the criteria to judge theory S?>Your criteria isn't verificationism, but it is your model that you use to reject certain claims as valid and other claims as invalid.>If your model is false (i.e., if you could accept it as possibly false), then observations would not be able to correspond with theory S. This is anti-realism.>The whole basis of something being true is the coherent theory of truth as it pertains to your model. This is anti-realism since it is not reliant on a direct correspondence with a state of affairs. >> Too bad because its always enjoyable to discuss issues with you (unless you become testy and then its not so much fun).

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