|
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 |
|
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 |
I was trying very very hard NOT to bring in "Intelligent Design" because I think that as it stands now, that's a crock :P
For the most part, you have it though. However, I do believe science will develop to the point it *can* see outside of the box. We've already made steps towards that with things like hypermath.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
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 |