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
This Is What Happens When We Stopped The Quizzes

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on August 1, 2001 17:29:29 UTC


>>>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. H: "what purpose would you model serve (I know I totally fail to understand your model...)?" D: My model is nothing more than a logical attack on an aspect of science otherwise totally ignored! By ignoring logic it that area, science makes their effort much less productive!>H: "In other words, truth is dependent by another criteria (your model) which is itself a representation of reality." If you regard being internally consistent as "another criteria" then yes, I would say that truth is bound by the criteria of being internally consistent. Internally inconsistent logic is an oxymoron!>>H: but you don't give us the reason why this stuff happens to obey your equations. Why? D: This statement is just plane false! That is exactly what my paper does!>It is no dig! It is an exact statement of what I think the problem is!>We can just as well tag these things with numbers! They are just tags Harv! So long as I do not understand what you are saying, does it make any difference how I code your comments for my records? So, I make the assumption that someday I will understand (though I will more probably be dead first), meanwhile, is it illogical of me to look for rational patterns in those comments? What I am looking for is an internally consistent way of interpreting those things (attaching a meaning to those numbers which I recorded - this is an abstract problem, I don't actually number them Harv). How else am I to come to understand what you are saying.Have a ball and keep on guessing -- Dick

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