Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dirtboy; metacognative
Real science doesn't come from starting with a premise and then trying to shoehorn the facts into that theory.

That makes for a tough row to hoe when we're dealing with evidence that was present before we, and most of our forefathers were born. Who of us cannot start with a premise? "Real science" - what does that mean? Does it mean an approach and understanding of the universe that squares precisely with objective reality? I trust quantum physics has a basis in reality. As a result, should not epistemological issues ensue across the board where the human species is concerned?

Bottom line: I don't care what generation we are or how smart we make ourselves out to be. We don't know jack schitt about the universe and all it entails. On an amplified editorial note, dogmatic adherents to the philosophy of evolution are like dull, ceaseless windbags; full of themselves while pretending their decades of existence somehow invalidate millennia of recorded history. They need to exit stage right WRT "real science."

242 posted on 03/09/2005 6:44:09 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies ]


To: Fester Chugabrew
That makes for a tough row to hoe when we're dealing with evidence that was present before we, and most of our forefathers were born.

Not really. You gather what facts you can and then try to fashion a theory. Can that theory be wrong? Of course. But it is still a better process than starting with a premise.

247 posted on 03/09/2005 6:47:31 PM PST by dirtboy (Drooling moron since 1998...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson