Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's just another reason to realize we are incredibly silly when we think we know virtually everything there is to know about the universe around us just because we are really good at scary looking math and because the stuff we see has always happened a certain way in the few hundred years we've been looking really closely at a 13 billion year old universe.
What prominent scientist has ever said that we know everything there is to know about the universe?
In the sense that a hammer's use is proven in driving a nail. As I wrote earlier, the proof is in the pudding. The validity of the SM is in the fruit that it consistently yields. The very broad and unqualified terms in the phrasing of the OP's question is for the purposes of a cute wordplay merely to claim what is good for the goose is good for the gander. See post #14.
That is obvious and that is also chango's point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer
What prominent scientist has ever said that we know everything there is to know about the universe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanTerra
Yeah! Who is this, "we?"
The "we" is referring to people like the OP . . . definitely not prominent scientists!
In the sense that a hammer's use is proven in driving a nail. As I wrote earlier, the proof is in the pudding. The validity of the SM is in the fruit that it consistently yields. The very broad and unqualified terms in the phrasing of the OP's question is for the purposes of a cute wordplay merely to claim what is good for the goose is good for the gander. See post #14.
Apparently you are reading it wrong... or maybe I wrote it wrong. The Scientific Method wasn't pulled out of a hat, it was arrived to by quantifying and codifying what works in a broad general way when it comes to science. A way of doing things that practices what it preaches is a good thing, not a reason to discount it.
not the least bit surprised this is getting so much attention.
I thought of an analogy with a hammer as well but couldn't get at anything so tried another,
If a person jumped into a painting whats the difference compared to a vantage point of knowing, being here on this little dot,
So all the paint and textures are noticed and classified for getting at contrast , the contrast then introduces a way to distinguish things and the number system is born with a value to the notorious and needed reality for the #1.
Problem is there is no real representation for the unit # 1 save the frame ( boundaries of the pic) which then allows the whole to be the real representation for the required something, representing #1 and a credibility for the math.
So the logic and the construction of reason for all the logic ( the math and our reasoning) needs something for the contrast and distinguishing other then the painting.
Therefore the only way science can be what it is, utilizing reason alongside contrast is to impart an imagined something, for the contrast which would have nothing to do with this world ( painting) well gotta go again. So logic and the science has the reason, but it needs a contrast and imagines the possibility as a brute premise.
I donno, the philosophy of what the tool is seems over done . There are all kinds of things witnessed in reality which represent what is going on in calculations. Propagation for example , honey comb, spider web, moon earth sun. Many things are witnessed in nature under different influences and can be called equations. Just because the memory can take a snap shot of things and manipulate circumstances for imaginary outcomes estimating doesn't remove any reality or value or anything really. Its a tool but it is reality otherwise man wouldn't be able to gather imagine and twist around in order to predict things. An imaginative reflection and reflection is a big reality, reasoning reflective in its nature. A talked about thing but simple really if its thought about no different then wondering if it is going to rain tomorrow and working around the potential outcome and option's. So it becomes an abstract suggestion on top of an abstract suggestion, which is more real and has more credibility ?
Last edited by alexcanter; 04-05-2014 at 01:01 PM..
Reason: removed a sentence
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
