| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bob White" |
| Date: |
01 Aug 2003 10:46:41 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-E79F7B.18040918072003@blade.randori.com...
In article <tsXRa.93517$H17.28407@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Science doesn't "tell us" anything, science is just the logical,
scientific
method of investigation, knucklehead.
A circular definition does not, in fact, define anything.
I wasn't offering a definition of science, but merely an explanation of how
it is done, logically and systematically, knucklehead. Science (from the
Latin) means knowledge.
Science doesn't "tell us" anything, science is just the logical, scientific
method of investigation, knucklehead. The facts speak for themselves. That
is what "tells us" about the nature of things.
And another thing, why would there ever be any limit to what can be
investigated logically, scientifically?
In any case, all that is involved in the scientific method of investigation
is to take the null hypothesis, "There are no ETs" for example, and that
stands as long as there is no ET demonstrated. That applies to anything
imaginable.
Null : of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
(as in, "There are no ETs.")
---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
method.
[...]
The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:
There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).
.... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...
---
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
01 Aug 2003 08:01:25 PM |
|
|
In article <BXvWa.29537$Vt6.11607@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-E79F7B.18040918072003@blade.randori.com...
In article <tsXRa.93517$H17.28407@sccrnsc02>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
Science doesn't "tell us" anything, science is just the logical,
scientific
method of investigation, knucklehead.
A circular definition does not, in fact, define anything.
I wasn't offering a definition of science, but merely an explanation of how
it is done, logically and systematically, knucklehead. Science (from the
Latin) means knowledge.
Science doesn't "tell us" anything,
Then it is no bloody use to us.
science is just the logical, scientific
method of investigation,
So science is just "science". Not a very useful statement.
knucklehead.
This is Septic's standard reply to anyone who understands standard
English rather than Septic's pseudo-English, as a method of
conveying ideas. Those posters in these threads whom Septic does not
name as knuckleheadded should be ashamed of themselves.
The facts speak for themselves.
Name me a fact that has spoken for itself.
That is what "tells us" about the nature of things.
"Facts" without the insight of brilliant or creative minds tell us
nothing. It is those minds that take facts and create insight.
And another thing, why would there ever be any limit to what can be
investigated logically, scientifically?
At some, hopefully distant epoch, humanity, and life, will cease to
exist on Earth or anywhere near it. Investigate that.
In any case, all that is involved in the scientific method of investigation
is to take the null hypothesis, "There are no ETs" for example, and that
stands as long as there is no ET demonstrated. That applies to anything
imaginable.
To equate science with the only creation of null hypotheses is to
miss the point of science entirely. If it were true, it would make
of science, as barren and useless a concept as Septic has tried to
make of logic.
[snipped another of Septic's irrelevant citations]
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
