|
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 |
|
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 |
and still are based on ideas that while provable in many, if not most, and sometimes even all conditions we can think of, are still not falsifiable (consider anything to do with black holes atm ... we can conjecture, but we cannot yet *prove* our ideas false).
We *believe* said entities are able to change the universe on a whim. We don't KNOW that for sure. That alone should be reason enough to at least try and prove it one way or the other.
It may well be a useless effort because those beings may well be able to manipulate the universe at will, but by the same token, just because as the most powerful force in the universe, we cannot do anything with blackholes other than fall victim to them, doesnt' mean we don't still research them and try to understand them from a scientific standpoint.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
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 |
