Welcome to Gaia! ::

That's ok, we were all in 9th grade at one time.

rofl


Going back over the bit where I said that, I think it may have been a bit harsh. I hope you did not think it was so. But yes, science is a method of understanding, and a method of understanding cannot create something, all it can do is understand what has been created, hence what I said about the thread title.



This has little to do with the statement about 'abscence of proof,' rather, this is more a complain about the lack of theory which is preent among scientists, pretty much everywhere now, but before the 1850's this lack of theory was pretty much restricted to the anglo-saxon world. This lack of theory, baptised 'Empiricism' says that we cannot know anything must happen, but we can know if it cannot happen... In short, as little interpretation of the facts as necessary is involved.

However, science is more and more conceeding ground to theory in deed, though it denies this in words, and this is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to science, the fact that it ties itself to empiricism, though it no longer uses it: It declares it the highest virtue in all fields, but denies it in its own.

The biggest victories of theory war Descartes' theory of the 'indestructability of motion,' Kant's 'nebular hypothesis' in his General Natural History and Theory of the Heavens, the calculation of the orbit of neptune before it could be discovered, the periodic table of elements and the deduction of elements hitherto unknown, later proven to be true, and Darwin's elaboration of the theory of evolution in a consistent form.

But that there were discoveries like Descartes' ans Kant's which were not followed up by scientists, but were independently 'discovered' centuries later says nothing about a lack of the means do figure them out, but rather says more about the distrust with which science hold philosophy, and theory in general.


While you may have intended to say the bolded bit in saying the italicised bit, (and I accept that as your intention) the italicised bit is in fact, in and of itself, wrong.
If one can prove something to happen, that means that it has happened, is happening, or will happen, in accordance with the probability attached to it.
As long as the idea of an infinite universe held sway, it was unreasonable to hold that Blanqui was wrong, however, now that the idea of an infinite universe is almost completely dismissed, it would be stupid to hold to such a view.

If one deems something to be possible, then one must declare it to happen in this universe in a ratio in accordance with the probability of it happening at all and the duration/size of the universe.

To the 'just because you cannot prove something doesn't mean it cannot exist' comment: If I were to suggest that beyond the planetoid pluto there is a Jovian sized planet, but it is so far away that it has almost no effect on the orbits of the planets before it and relfects almost no light back to us, in short, we have no way of knowing whether or not it is there: would you say that my claim is entirely unscientific, based on no evidence and therfore, regardless of the truth, irrelevant, as there is no way of determining/benefiting from such knowledge, or would you say "you know, you could be right!"?


When you were describing it, I assumed a jellyfish, though I did not know about:
.



This is pretty much what was said, however, I have dealt with that above.


What is this statement other than an apology for religious revelation?

Therefore, it must be assumed that in an infinite universe there would be an infinite number of planets where they did evolve. Hoewever, in the limited universe we live in, the likelyhood of them existing at any one time is dependent on the number of worlds habitable to fire-breathing flying reptiles and horses with a corn[it is a joke] on their head and the amount of time such worlds have existed in a state sufficient to suppor such life.

That is, there is a given probability for such life existing.
For the planet however, there is no way we could assume its existence as there is no way to assume the existence based on any fact.


Ok, bad sentence structure, such that it was hard to understand this, but if I understand correctly you are saying:
"What about something that we know to be true but cannot prove?"
Is this correct?
If so, I would say that such a thing is therefore not 'known,' you simply take it on faith, which has no track record in its favour.


I think it would be better to speak openly and not give any means for incorrect understanding. That way people know exactly what you are trying to say.

Oh, wonderful...
First you say you teach by analogy, now you say you teach by providing the method.Not only that, but you are being rather patronising (both in words and in actions) to the membership of this guild.

Please show the analogies I criticised and how they teach the correct method.
If I have criticised your posts it is because I saw something wrong with them, and yet, you did not adress that directly, instead said:

Either you were not speaking in metaphor and you were just wrong and feel ashamed of it and are trying to cover it up, or you are speaking in metaphor so irrelevant or wrong that the inner logic cannot be found... And thus is not to good as an educational tool.

Evading the question.

I said:

You have not done this, instead, you have said that I have taken your arguments out of context. Not only have I taken your arguments out of context, but it is only something I have done just now.

Looking through my posts, the only analogy I criticised was the one about the ''crazy' genius,' though how was this analogy takenv'literaly' as opposed to as an 'analogy.' Or is singling that argument out taking it out of context?
You say that to take an argument out of context is pointless, I would say more than that, but at the same time, I deny that I have taken anything 'out of context.' All I have done is take the basic thought content of your posts, insofar as I disagree with them, and have declared and displayed that disagreement.

However, why stop at the thread? Why not include all your posts in the guild? I know that certainly gives me a better picture of your abilities and method than any one thread could.


I have not seen someone 'teach' using incorrect facts and method in order to give the correct facts and method. Though you will no doubt claim that all of my objections are your own, contained and anticipated, nay, intended by your very system of teaching, 'dynamic' as it is.


And I am not posting for your benefit. Originally, yes, but not now. Now it is only for the other people who may have been interested in this topic, which has gone way to far off.

If I do not understand your 'method' at times, I can always see the results you use, and they are wrong. If I could understand your style fully I would be able criticise your results more fully as I would understand the reasoning behind them.


Which is why you use bad science? Science which you claim to hav learnt in year 5 which is now distorted and falsified in your posts?
I think your post on the conservation of energy in regard to the mind can be taken as a decent reference?

If you make people think, the thoughts they must come up with after being taught by your dynamic style must be as bad as the style. The thoughts must be limited in scientific knowledge, and even more limited in the ability to use that knowledge.


Quiet the little genius, you can claim the fruit of my criticism as your own then, can you?

Who says it was created?

Well first off, the big bang wasn't an explosion, it's more accurate to describe it as a sudden, violent expansion. Second off, math and science point definitively towards the big bang happening, not to say that the scientists are definitely right, they could be wrong, it's just that no one has found a better explanation. If it sounds ridiculous to you, it sounded even more ridiculous to the scientists who first theorized it. The thing that scientists don't know is why the big bang happened, explain that however you want, but there are a few theories and one or two have substantial proof, but not really substantial enough to seep into the cultural mindset yet. Science is not faith, you don't believe in science, it is proven.