Skip to comments.
Breaking Through Conventional Scientific Paradigm
The Epoch Times ^
| July 3, 2006
| Nataly Teplitsky, Ph.D.
Posted on 07/16/2006 4:45:40 PM PDT by walford
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
To: Coyoteman
Truth:
This is a word best avoided entirely in physics except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from it seems to be correct to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that its use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths.
Absolutely. I love science and only get concerned when some think it is something other than you describe.
To: microgood
Care to address my other points?
22
posted on
07/16/2006 8:07:45 PM PDT
by
RFC_Gal
To: RFC_Gal
My eyes and brain working together tell me that what I am seeing is 100% correct. It isn't, humans have two blind spots that our optical pre/post processing systems work around.
And as an addendum, if we did not believe our sensory ability or that we were able to rationally understand the world around us, this conclusion could never have been reached.
To: RFC_Gal
Truth doesn't tell me that a theory might be falsified in the future, science does. It isn't science if it can not be falsified.
True, but science is an adventure in making assumptions that cannot be proven to acheive a loftier goal. Science makes assumptions that cannot be verified as true to get to a different place in reality. That is why they call them theories. For example, to embark on the theory of evolution, one has to assume all processes are naturalistic. To deliver a child, and name it, one need not engage in that abstraction.
To: microgood
"Deity(s) did it" isn't falsifiable, that is why science leaves out the supernatural.
25
posted on
07/16/2006 8:16:19 PM PDT
by
RFC_Gal
To: DaveLoneRanger; wallcrawlr
To: RFC_Gal
"Deity(s) did it" isn't falsifiable, that is why science leaves out the supernatural.
True, and that is what makes science a theory, it makes assumptions which cannot be determined to be true or false. It assumes that because something is not falsifiable, it it false.
Actually, the whole notion of making scientific theories falsifiable was very recent, and came about because of philosopher name Karl Popper. The notion of falsifiability of sciencific theories is less than 50 years old.
To: the invisib1e hand
I go with the "No space, no timejust events..."
And memories.
28
posted on
07/16/2006 8:38:16 PM PDT
by
glorgau
To: walford
To: balrog666; microgood
Perhaps you should undertake a course of study in English so you can learn when capitalization is meaningful.balrog, who cares about puncuation - we're all out of 10th grade -- right?
30
posted on
07/16/2006 8:53:48 PM PDT
by
GOPJ
("...we're in the third world war, which side do you think should win?" -- Newt Gingrich)
To: Allan
To: walford
Religion is merely a means for the finite to approach the Infinite. Perfectly reasonable and appropriate when it's understood for it's purpose and limitations. When we decide however, that a certain man-made system is closer than others or -- even worse -- that ours is the Only Way because the Almighty said so, then we are flirting with dogmatism. As such it is blasphemy.The article is intellectually bankrupt. It assumes God doesn't want his name used for evil, thus the Blasphemy of Dogma. However such an idea about God must also be a Dogma. Further the history in that article is wrong concerning the Reformation. Reformation initiated years of religious wars. No one, not protestant or Catholic thought at the time that they couldn't salve the disagreement by force. Only over years of exhaustive conflict did they stop fighting over it (although they haven't really in some places). In any case the religious wars did leave everyone with a cynical attitude, which paved the way for the Enlightenment and the irreligiousness of the last few centuries.
To: microgood
True, and that is what makes science a theory, it makes assumptions which cannot be determined to be true or false. It assumes that because something is not falsifiable, it it false. Two points here:
1. You write "True, and that is what makes science a theory, it makes assumptions which cannot be determined to be true or false." This is not correct. Science strives to theory. Theory is the highest level of achievement in science (see the definitions I posted earlier). Any assumption, hypothesis, or theory which cannot be falsified is not really science.
2. You write "It assumes that because something is not falsifiable, it it false." Again, not correct. If it is not falsifiable, it is not science. (ID falls within this category: If I can't understand it, then a diety musta did it! Can't be falsified: not science.)
33
posted on
07/16/2006 9:23:35 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: Coyoteman
My bad. You are correct. It not necessarily false, it is just not science if it is not falsifiable.
To: RFC_Gal
Descartes pointed out that, since our senses can be fooled without our being able to know the difference (e.g. dreams, hallucinations, etc.), there is no way to objectively demonstrate that what we see, hear, etc. corresponds to an external "reality" in any way. Therefore, all observations made by use of our senses (including scientific observations) are suspect. We must take the existence of the world on faith. All we can know for certain is that which we experience directly, without use of our fallible senses -- i.e. our own existence. Cogito, ergo sum.
35
posted on
07/16/2006 9:35:54 PM PDT
by
B-Chan
(Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
To: microgood
My bad. You are correct. It not necessarily false, it is just not science if it is not falsifiable. I am glad we agree.
On that note, goodnight. And thanks for the nice discussion (which is getting more and more rare here).
36
posted on
07/16/2006 9:37:16 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: B-Chan
We must take the existence of the world on faith. All we can know for certain is that which we experience directly, without use of our fallible senses -- i.e. our own existence. Cogito, ergo sum. You might think that. I think that's a bunch of philosophy. I avoided philosophy (successfully) through 12 years of college (sociology and economics too).
I prefer science; that is, fact and theory.
Goodnight.
37
posted on
07/16/2006 9:40:55 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: walford
You could have had an excellent post......if you just left 3/4 of it out........
-p
38
posted on
07/16/2006 10:01:17 PM PDT
by
Phil Southern
(Dirt is for growin' taters, asphault is for racin')
To: microgood
Hmmm, the philosophy of science. I thought they were supposed to be seperate....
39
posted on
07/16/2006 10:14:00 PM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: Coyoteman
On that note, goodnight. And thanks for the nice discussion (which is getting more and more rare here).
Thank you as well. Especially for what you do. Whatever theories that are developed based on the facts that are discovered, those like yourself that meticulously document the archeological facts of this wonderous planet make a timeless and permanent contribution to the world, and for that we are all grateful.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson