|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
But what it does show is that there are consistent, expressive systems in which there are unprovable statements. The universe might be one. Your assertion earlier that "if god exists, it should be possible to (dis)prove his existence" (paraphrasing), therefore, holds no water.
And those are not assumptions, those are axioms - the circumstances under which the theory holds sway. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
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 |
