|
Is science based in fact or belief? | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 16:28:58 |
|
Science is based on belief supported by fact. | by hadji | 2007-01-22 16:35:24 |
|
but could it be the reason it's faith-based | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 16:36:58 |
|
That's a pointless statement though. | by hadji | 2007-01-22 16:39:05 |
|
But per the scientific method, | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 16:47:26 |
| Sounds like a semantic problem. |
by vetitice |
2007-01-22 16:55:09 |
A Hypothesis is a WAG that explains phenomena without much by way of proof.
A Theory is a WAG that's survived numerous attempts to punch holes in it.
Eventually the Theory does NOT become fact. It either
a) remains Theory, as yet disproved,
b) is blown away completely by a new Theory, or
c) becomes Theory, accurate to solve these problems within these limits. Use *this* hypotheses/theory for *those* limits.
But never gets proved. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
It may very well be. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 17:01:28 |
|
Who's this 'we', kemo sabe? | by vetitice | 2007-01-22 17:13:50 |
|
But very large portions of science have | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 17:22:55 |
|
OK, I think I see where you're taking this. | by vetitice | 2007-01-22 17:38:50 |
|
ARGH!! you did it!! :P | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 17:40:59 |
|
That depends on the scope of the box. | by hadji | 2007-01-22 17:44:52 |
|
There's always a bigger box. | by vetitice | 2007-01-22 17:51:03 |
|
Thus my point | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 17:55:25 |
|
But the point is that you never CAN prove it. | by hadji | 2007-01-22 18:21:28 |
|
We don't KNOW we cannot prove it. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:26:02 |
|
The fact that the possibility exists means we | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:27:56 |
|
True, but if we're wrong, | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:29:13 |
|
No, we can't prove his non-existence doing that | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:32:33 |
|
Then we may prove his existence | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:49:47 |
|
We might | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:52:08 |
|
I'm interested in God. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:54:52 |
|
Fair enough. | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 19:05:37 |
|
Yes, but when I spawn | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 19:06:23 |
|
Talk to Goedel. | by vetitice | 2007-01-22 17:46:18 |
|
Nothing to be sorry about. That's the point of the | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 17:56:33 |
|
What godel proved is that there are some things | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:00:45 |
|
Proved? | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:02:30 |
|
Not exactly. | by vetitice | 2007-01-22 18:10:48 |
|
That would indicate a limited model. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:14:02 |
|
The very definition of 'universe' is that it's | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:18:20 |
|
That merely shows *we* were wrong | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:24:28 |
|
Then once again you're arguing about nothing more | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:26:38 |
|
We already covered that up here: | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:31:14 |
|
It's still a matter of semantics | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:35:30 |
|
only everything we know. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:52:04 |
|
No, he's proved it. It is in no way an assumption. | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:11:49 |
|
By that article itself, it lists there are limits | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:20:32 |
|
Certainly | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:24:57 |
|
I agree. The universe might be one | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:28:18 |
|
We don't need to prove it is one. | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:38:16 |
|
How much of what we have proved do we | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:53:58 |
