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

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Are You Having Fun Guessing?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on August 1, 2001 16:01:43 UTC


>>>then please keep on correcting my responses.>H:"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]." D: I have no argument with that at all! My entire argument is with scientists who think they are being rational and working with well defined concepts when they clearly are not.> what purpose would you model serve (I know I totally fail to understand your model...)?>In other words, truth is dependent by another criteria (your model) which is itself a representation of reality.> The trouble with other approaches is that they do not predict phenomena reliably. >You say that GR is wrong> and that your model satisfies the same experiements as GR, however why should we do that other than the coherent factor that your model offers? There are no new predictions.>This is where anti-realism comes into play since we are to reject a theory GR as true simly because it does not correspond with your model.>On what basis?>Dick, this *is* anti-realism. You are basing theory S not on a correspondence to a state of affairs but on coherency to your model (i.e., the effective criteria of your anti-realist framework). > For example, you rejected GR based on this inconsistency with your model, right? If evidence was not of the verificationist variety then a verificationist would be forced to *reject* the evidence as evidence for something.>>This is your normal 'dig' that I've come to expect at the end of your posts (after usually prolonged debate).

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 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