inference of a multiverse more plausible now: dark flow (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, January 06, 2011, 22:41 (5068 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> > Well, as long as we remember that science isn't about 'proving' but model building, we'll avoid the pitfalls associated with 'proof.' 
> > 
> > As for Dawkins, considering that science has dispelled nearly all supernatural explanations, he's got a reason to be cocky. While I sometimes wish I could be religious, it's important to note that overall, science has made life visibly better for everyone. (For the record I've never read one of his books, though I'm familiar with his ideas and attitudes.)
> 
> If science is not about proving anything, but about model building, then why demand proof from religion. That is a double standard. That is saying, "We will speculate, but not prove. You, however, must prove all that you speculate upon."-"Proof" means that you have arrived at an irrefutable conclusion, such as 1+1=2, or that all numbers can be represented by the multiplication of primes.-Science simply doesn't operate like mathematics. In science you observe, record, and hypothesize, and you generate "more" or "less" likely alternatives. Though our human wish for steadfastness always intervenes to our detriment.-Where religion goes wrong is when it applies itself to the physical world. Zeus causes lightening, don't you know that?-In the case of christianity, we have no evidence that resurrection is possible. But it turns out that that the entire religion turns upon that single claim being true. It defies reason and experience. It is in THIS kind of claim that a scientist can ask, "What is you evidence for this claim?"-But note the semantical difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' and you should understand the nuance of my thinking more clearly...-> And ultimately, that pretty much sums up my personal disagreement with the scientific community. They demand something that they themselves refuse to provide. I have my hypothesis on God, and it has changed and grown and adapted as I have expanded my own personal knowledge base and will most likely continue to do so. How is that any different?-That depends entirely on your claim.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"