Board:   [DoveNet] Religious Discussion/Debate/Evangelism
Subject: Re: Not religious but enj
From:    Sprite
Date:    Mon Dec 30, 2019 17:17

@VIA: TINTETBB
  Re: Re: Not religious but enj
  By: Zombie Mambo to HusTler on Mon Dec 30 2019 13:20:12

 ZM> Validated by Science?
 ZM> What does that mean.

  Validation by the scientific method.

 ZM> Seems to me most things that science validates, science later
 ZM> un-validates. Truth in Earth terms does not = truth beyond Earth.

  What you're thinking of as 'science', thesame as the 'scientific method', above, is not.  You're thinking of 'theoretical science', which oftentimes ends up as pure mathematical masturbation, as equivalent to proven science.  The two are very different.  It's not an uncommon mistake, either.

 ZM> I take little stock in science that tries to expland things beyond our
 ZM> planet.

  Probably a good thing.  I mean I don't doubt that we've got a lot of postulated experimental results dead on, but probably for the wrong reasons, and the farther youget from anything we've properly modeled in a laboratory, the more math has just built on math that has no empirical evidence behind it.  Thus it gets to be a hell of a lot farther from reality if anybody missed a sign or something in an equation.  ;)  Oreven if they just didn't get the abstraction dead on or the constant rounded to the right place...
  It's a shame that so many people judge science on the merits of theoretical science, though.  The media and educational system should really make more distinctions a lot more obvious.

---
 ■ Synchronet ■ My Brand-New BBS
.