Re: The Aether and the Trolls



Bill Hobba wrote:
> "Daniel Weston" <daniel009@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:10930-42A9DDE3-385@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Bob Kolker: You have repeated again that there is no compelling
> > evidence that we exist, or that humans correctly perceive reality. This
> > is some form of Kantianism or Berkeleyism.
> >
> > Divide the universe into 2 parts, your body and the rest of the
> > universe. Your ability to learn of the universe is dependant upon your
> > body; more specifically your senses and your brain to correctly utilize
> > the senses' incoming signals. From this process we obtain knowledge of
> > the universe external to ourselves.
> >
> > At this point there is the overriding issue of, how accurate is the
> > information we receive and rely upon? This information is very reliable
> > and can be proved so by a preponderance of the evidence, and in most
> > cases, beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't have to assume the accuracy,
> > we can prove it. Using our senses to obtain and interpret the
> > information of the universe external to ourselves, we have accomplished
> > many things which could only have been accomplished if our information
> > detecting abilities were excellent. Our sensory accumulation and
> > utilization have proved accurate by noting in part: we have risen to
> > the top of the food chain, we have sent vehicles to Mars, invented and
> > utilized computers and the internet, done heart transplants, sent men to
> > the moon and back, etc, etc. You could easily add 100 more. This could
> > not have been accomplished unless our knowledge of the universe were
> > outstanding.
> >
> > The evidence that we can learn of reality correctly, is substantial,
> > clear, and convincing.
> >
> > I can say all of the above in arcane philosophy talk, if that would
> > help. Kantianism and Berkeleyism are dead. Science has replaced that
> > junk with Naturalism. (Materialism) Upwards and onwards.
>
> Daniel the philosophical positions held by scientists are many and varied.
> Take Roger Penrose for example - his platonic tendencies can hardly be
> called materialist. A much better view to take is that if it has no
> observational consequences then it lies beyond the realm of science and we
> should not worry about it too much - except when we are being philosophers.
>
> Thanks
> Bill

Actually Bill it's only a scientific *theory* which must be testable by
observation. Science in general can and should certainly include
consideration of that which is not (at least yet) observable. It may
have some bearing on that which is observed. It is in fact new
hypotheses which lead to ground-breaking theories. There can be no
dount that there exists more than that which can be observed. Science
is the study of how things work. It is good to push the borders of that
field, to sense new things which previously we never thought might
exist. Perhaps one day we might be able to materially detect an
influence of a spirit world on our natural world. That we cannot now
does not mean that such a world does not exist.

If a deaf and blind man is standing alone on a road with a truck
bearing down on him, but he is not aware of it, does it matter? Should
he be wondering what is causing that vibration under his feet, even
though he cannot tell? Perhaps, given enough time, he might work out a
way to tell.
(Now don't abuse the analogy please.)

Anthony Rose

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: YEC
    ... attempting to prove that the Earth is old and have resorted to ... evidence indicating that the Bible "passed". ... earth and the universe. ... cannot be refuted by science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: global warming myth
    ... We are headed for a very messy post industrial sewer on Earth more along the lines of Bladerunner but with bad weather, much higher sea levels and no jet cars. ... start trying to attack modern science with your Biblical myth sources. ... incomplete but experimental evidence will constrain the theories. ... see any reason why it can't apply to the universe. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Chance or Design
    ... Because we have evidence for the existence of one, ... believe in a closed universe until he didn't. ... It is in general not acceptable, in science, to claim truth for any ... Take some physics classes and find out. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... Based on an acurate representation of the nature of science ... chance of abiogenesis is zero, so the argument pretty much falls apart. ... let's admit that there is no scientific evidence. ... that the early universe was very hot. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
    ... It is how the evidence is interpreted that is different. ... You see a purely natural universe with no influence from ... research strategy and empirical findings and ... legitimate science journals because they will be rejected for the ...
    (talk.origins)