Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
best fit models
27 views
Skip to first unread message
Dale
Sep 23, 2012, 4:02:13 AM9/23/12
to
science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
I think this imparts a level of faith and some people shouldn't take
this to the limit of thinking science can answer every question and
religion cannot answer any questions
for instance, there is no "theory of everything" for physics that can be
proved, in fact many supposedly scientific claims cannot be proved, they
are merely best fit models that are accepted by the mainstream until a
better model presents itself
science it best suited to induction, not deduction
--
Dale
I think this imparts a level of faith and some people shouldn't take
this to the limit of thinking science can answer every question and
religion cannot answer any questions
for instance, there is no "theory of everything" for physics that can be
proved, in fact many supposedly scientific claims cannot be proved, they
are merely best fit models that are accepted by the mainstream until a
better model presents itself
science it best suited to induction, not deduction
--
Dale
John S. Wilkins
Sep 23, 2012, 4:28:00 AM9/23/12
to
Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
Best fit to what, exactly?
> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
[Akaike Information Criterion, I presume?]
>
> I think this imparts a level of faith and some people shouldn't take
> this to the limit of thinking science can answer every question and
> religion cannot answer any questions
To a man with a religious hammer, everything is a faith nail. But I
> I think this imparts a level of faith and some people shouldn't take
> this to the limit of thinking science can answer every question and
> religion cannot answer any questions
think you strain the meaning of "faith" somewhat if you think that
scientific statements are on a par with religious doctrine.
>
> for instance, there is no "theory of everything" for physics that can be
> proved, in fact many supposedly scientific claims cannot be proved, they
> are merely best fit models that are accepted by the mainstream until a
> better model presents itself
>
Science (unlike revelation) takes time to acquire broader knowledge.
> for instance, there is no "theory of everything" for physics that can be
> proved, in fact many supposedly scientific claims cannot be proved, they
> are merely best fit models that are accepted by the mainstream until a
> better model presents itself
>
It's more expensive too. And you definitely get what you pay for in
epistemology.
> science it best suited to induction, not deduction
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
--
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
wiki trix
Sep 23, 2012, 9:30:55 AM9/23/12
to
On Sep 23, 1:05 am, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
True.
> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
> I think this imparts a level of faith and some people shouldn't take
> this to the limit of thinking science can answer every question and
> religion cannot answer any questions
thought of as "faith". Also, who thinks that science can answer every
question? No scientist that I know of would think that way. As for
religion answering any questions, I have not found one example of that
yet.
> for instance, there is no "theory of everything" for physics that can be
> proved, in fact many supposedly scientific claims cannot be proved, they
> are merely best fit models that are accepted by the mainstream until a
> better model presents itself
> science it best suited to induction, not deduction
raven1
Sep 23, 2012, 12:42:41 PM9/23/12
to
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>science it best suited to induction, not deduction.
I deduce that you know little about science, and induce that that's
unlikely to change much.
---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight
wrote:
I deduce that you know little about science, and induce that that's
unlikely to change much.
---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight
J.J. O'Shea
Sep 23, 2012, 12:59:36 PM9/23/12
to
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:42:41 -0400, raven1 wrote
(in article <9ueu581mgvr7qc9vo...@4ax.com>):
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>>
>> I think this imparts a level of faith and some people shouldn't take
>> this to the limit of thinking science can answer every question and
>> religion cannot answer any questions
>>
>> for instance, there is no "theory of everything" for physics that can be
>> proved, in fact many supposedly scientific claims cannot be proved, they
>> are merely best fit models that are accepted by the mainstream until a
>> better model presents itself
>>
>> science it best suited to induction, not deduction.
>
> I deduce that you know little about science,
That's not correct. He knows _nothing_ about science.
> and induce that that's
> unlikely to change much.
That's not correct, either. He's never, ever, going to change.
>
> ---
> raven1
> aa # 1096
> EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
> BAAWA Knight
>
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
(in article <9ueu581mgvr7qc9vo...@4ax.com>):
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>>
>> I think this imparts a level of faith and some people shouldn't take
>> this to the limit of thinking science can answer every question and
>> religion cannot answer any questions
>>
>> for instance, there is no "theory of everything" for physics that can be
>> proved, in fact many supposedly scientific claims cannot be proved, they
>> are merely best fit models that are accepted by the mainstream until a
>> better model presents itself
>>
>> science it best suited to induction, not deduction.
>
> I deduce that you know little about science,
> and induce that that's
> unlikely to change much.
>
> ---
> raven1
> aa # 1096
> EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
> BAAWA Knight
>
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Bob Casanova
Sep 23, 2012, 2:06:40 PM9/23/12
to
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
Not exactly; science relies on observations, and constructs
and tests (but does not "rely on") models (hypotheses and
theories) to explain those observations.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
and tests (but does not "rely on") models (hypotheses and
theories) to explain those observations.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Kalkidas
Sep 23, 2012, 4:17:43 PM9/23/12
to
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:28:00 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins)
wrote:
>Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>
>Best fit to what, exactly?
Why, the facts of course! Oops, that means the facts underlie the
best-fit models, which means that science relies on facts! :-)
>[Akaike Information Criterion, I presume?]
>> I think this imparts a level of faith and some people shouldn't take
>> this to the limit of thinking science can answer every question and
>> religion cannot answer any questions
>
>To a man with a religious hammer, everything is a faith nail. But I
>think you strain the meaning of "faith" somewhat if you think that
>scientific statements are on a par with religious doctrine.
If they are on such a par, why call them "scientific"? OTOH, if some
religious doctrines are on a par with scientific statements (i.e. they
are best-fit models of empirical facts), why call them "religious"?
>> for instance, there is no "theory of everything" for physics that can be
>> proved, in fact many supposedly scientific claims cannot be proved, they
>> are merely best fit models that are accepted by the mainstream until a
>> better model presents itself
>>
>Science (unlike revelation) takes time to acquire broader knowledge.
>It's more expensive too. And you definitely get what you pay for in
>epistemology.
>> science it best suited to induction, not deduction
OTOH, Elijah and Moses and Jesus seem to have had quite a difficult time
acquiring "revelation". And it pretty much cost them everything they
had.
wrote:
>Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>
>Best fit to what, exactly?
best-fit models, which means that science relies on facts! :-)
>[Akaike Information Criterion, I presume?]
>> I think this imparts a level of faith and some people shouldn't take
>> this to the limit of thinking science can answer every question and
>> religion cannot answer any questions
>
>To a man with a religious hammer, everything is a faith nail. But I
>think you strain the meaning of "faith" somewhat if you think that
>scientific statements are on a par with religious doctrine.
religious doctrines are on a par with scientific statements (i.e. they
are best-fit models of empirical facts), why call them "religious"?
>> for instance, there is no "theory of everything" for physics that can be
>> proved, in fact many supposedly scientific claims cannot be proved, they
>> are merely best fit models that are accepted by the mainstream until a
>> better model presents itself
>>
>Science (unlike revelation) takes time to acquire broader knowledge.
>It's more expensive too. And you definitely get what you pay for in
>epistemology.
>> science it best suited to induction, not deduction
acquiring "revelation". And it pretty much cost them everything they
had.
Ron O
Sep 23, 2012, 5:40:48 PM9/23/12
to
On Sep 23, 12:00 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:42:41 -0400, raven1 wrote
> (in article <9ueu581mgvr7qc9vopm0rta6f08e88g...@4ax.com>):
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:42:41 -0400, raven1 wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid>
> > wrote:
>
> >> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>
> >> I think this imparts a level of faith and some people shouldn't take
> >> this to the limit of thinking science can answer every question and
> >> religion cannot answer any questions
>
> >> for instance, there is no "theory of everything" for physics that can be
> >> proved, in fact many supposedly scientific claims cannot be proved, they
> >> are merely best fit models that are accepted by the mainstream until a
> >> better model presents itself
>
> >> science it best suited to induction, not deduction.
>
> > I deduce that you know little about science,
>
> That's not correct. He knows _nothing_ about science.
>
> > and induce that that's
> > unlikely to change much.
>
> That's not correct, either. He's never, ever, going to change.
What about when he dies and God tells him that he was wrong all the
>
> >> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>
> >> I think this imparts a level of faith and some people shouldn't take
> >> this to the limit of thinking science can answer every question and
> >> religion cannot answer any questions
>
> >> for instance, there is no "theory of everything" for physics that can be
> >> proved, in fact many supposedly scientific claims cannot be proved, they
> >> are merely best fit models that are accepted by the mainstream until a
> >> better model presents itself
>
> >> science it best suited to induction, not deduction.
>
> > I deduce that you know little about science,
>
> That's not correct. He knows _nothing_ about science.
>
> > and induce that that's
> > unlikely to change much.
>
> That's not correct, either. He's never, ever, going to change.
time?
Ron Okimoto
J.J. O'Shea
Sep 23, 2012, 6:21:46 PM9/23/12
to
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:40:48 -0400, Ron O wrote
(in article
<87c79f06-38d5-41b4...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>):
> On Sep 23, 12:00ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:42:41 -0400, raven1 wrote
>> (in article <9ueu581mgvr7qc9vopm0rta6f08e88g...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>>
>>>> I think this imparts a level of faith and some people shouldn't take
>>>> this to the limit of thinking science can answer every question and
>>>> religion cannot answer any questions
>>
>>>> for instance, there is no "theory of everything" for physics that can be
>>>> proved, in fact many supposedly scientific claims cannot be proved, they
>>>> are merely best fit models that are accepted by the mainstream until a
>>>> better model presents itself
>>
>>>> science it best suited to induction, not deduction.
>>
>>> I deduce that you know little about science,
>>
>> That's not correct. He knows _nothing_ about science.
>>
>>> and induce that that's
>>> unlikely to change much.
>>
>> That's not correct, either. He's never, ever, going to change.
>
> What about when he dies and God tells him that he was wrong all the
> time?
Dale will then tell God that _He's_ wrong.
Seriously, when was the last time that a creationist posting on t.o admitted
error in _anything_?
(in article
<87c79f06-38d5-41b4...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>):
> On Sep 23, 12:00ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:42:41 -0400, raven1 wrote
>> (in article <9ueu581mgvr7qc9vopm0rta6f08e88g...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>>
>>>> I think this imparts a level of faith and some people shouldn't take
>>>> this to the limit of thinking science can answer every question and
>>>> religion cannot answer any questions
>>
>>>> for instance, there is no "theory of everything" for physics that can be
>>>> proved, in fact many supposedly scientific claims cannot be proved, they
>>>> are merely best fit models that are accepted by the mainstream until a
>>>> better model presents itself
>>
>>>> science it best suited to induction, not deduction.
>>
>>> I deduce that you know little about science,
>>
>> That's not correct. He knows _nothing_ about science.
>>
>>> and induce that that's
>>> unlikely to change much.
>>
>> That's not correct, either. He's never, ever, going to change.
>
> What about when he dies and God tells him that he was wrong all the
> time?
Seriously, when was the last time that a creationist posting on t.o admitted
error in _anything_?
Dale
Sep 24, 2012, 3:25:48 AM9/24/12
to
On 09/23/2012 02:06 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>
> Not exactly; science relies on observations, and constructs
> and tests (but does not "rely on") models (hypotheses and
> theories) to explain those observations.
>
then explain the "brain in a jar" hypothesis
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>
> Not exactly; science relies on observations, and constructs
> and tests (but does not "rely on") models (hypotheses and
> theories) to explain those observations.
>
--
Dale
*Hemidactylus*
Sep 24, 2012, 5:16:20 AM9/24/12
to
scientific hypothesis. To actually perform such an experiment with a
human brain would be unethical.
Syamsu
Sep 24, 2012, 6:03:59 AM9/24/12
to
religious issue, and what is chosen is a scientific issue.
One has to take an axiom of nothing, or zero. Take any thing, like a
tree, or the sun, and put it in a frame of reference of nothing. If
you explan how to get from nothing being there, to a tree being there,
then you have exhausted all possible explanation, and there can be no
scientific explanation for a tree which can be better. Nothing or 0 is
the defnite limit to what reductionist explanation can be reduced to.
wiki trix
Sep 24, 2012, 6:40:50 AM9/24/12
to
On Sep 24, 2:20�am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 09/24/2012 03:25 AM, Dale wrote:> On 09/23/2012 02:06 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid>:
> On 09/24/2012 03:25 AM, Dale wrote:> On 09/23/2012 02:06 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, the following appeared
>
> >>> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>
> >> Not exactly; science relies on observations, and constructs
> >> and tests (but does not "rely on") models (hypotheses and
> >> theories) to explain those observations.
>
> > then explain the "brain in a jar" hypothesis
>
> The brain in a vat is more of a philosophical thought experiment than
> scientific hypothesis. To actually perform such an experiment with a
> human brain would be unethical.
I have put my brain in a vat a few times. Trying to quit though.
> >>> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>
> >> Not exactly; science relies on observations, and constructs
> >> and tests (but does not "rely on") models (hypotheses and
> >> theories) to explain those observations.
>
> > then explain the "brain in a jar" hypothesis
>
> The brain in a vat is more of a philosophical thought experiment than
> scientific hypothesis. To actually perform such an experiment with a
> human brain would be unethical.
wiki trix
Sep 24, 2012, 6:42:14 AM9/24/12
to
Ron O
Sep 24, 2012, 6:48:14 AM9/24/12
to
On Sep 24, 4:20 am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 09/24/2012 03:25 AM, Dale wrote:> On 09/23/2012 02:06 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid>:
> On 09/24/2012 03:25 AM, Dale wrote:> On 09/23/2012 02:06 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, the following appeared
>
> >>> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>
> >> Not exactly; science relies on observations, and constructs
> >> and tests (but does not "rely on") models (hypotheses and
> >> theories) to explain those observations.
>
> > then explain the "brain in a jar" hypothesis
>
> The brain in a vat is more of a philosophical thought experiment than
> scientific hypothesis. To actually perform such an experiment with a
> human brain would be unethical.
He may be mixing up science fiction with science.
> >>> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>
> >> Not exactly; science relies on observations, and constructs
> >> and tests (but does not "rely on") models (hypotheses and
> >> theories) to explain those observations.
>
> > then explain the "brain in a jar" hypothesis
>
> The brain in a vat is more of a philosophical thought experiment than
> scientific hypothesis. To actually perform such an experiment with a
> human brain would be unethical.
Ron Okimoto
wiki trix
Sep 24, 2012, 6:52:23 AM9/24/12
to
On Sep 24, 12:30�am, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 09/23/2012 02:06 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid>:
> On 09/23/2012 02:06 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, the following appeared
>
> >> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>
> > Not exactly; science relies on observations, and constructs
> > and tests (but does not "rely on") models (hypotheses and
> > theories) to explain those observations.
>
> then explain the "brain in a jar" hypothesis
You mean in a jar of formaldehyde? That would be a good hypothesis for
> >> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>
> > Not exactly; science relies on observations, and constructs
> > and tests (but does not "rely on") models (hypotheses and
> > theories) to explain those observations.
>
> then explain the "brain in a jar" hypothesis
your brain... not mine. Or do you mean "Brain in a Vat". That is a
special form of Gedanken Experiment known as "Gehirn im Tank". Its
about how well you think when you are tanked.
raven1
Sep 24, 2012, 8:41:44 AM9/24/12
to
jillery
Sep 24, 2012, 10:09:51 AM9/24/12
to
it's more likely just pissing-in-the-wind.
Harry K
Sep 24, 2012, 11:34:20 AM9/24/12
to
Harry K
Harry K
Sep 24, 2012, 11:37:54 AM9/24/12
to
On Sep 23, 1:05 am, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Science: Takes a batch of associated facts and fashions a theory that
best explains those facts. That theory is always subject to
modification as more facts are found. Sometimes (rarely) a theory is
discarded.
Religion: Takes a "theory" and does its damndest to force facts to
fit it. The theory is only modified when the facts become so
unarguably they slap the theist in the face. He will then modify the
theory but only when dragged kicking, screaming and biting to do so.
Harry K
wiki trix
Sep 24, 2012, 12:57:29 PM9/24/12
to
Bob Casanova
Sep 24, 2012, 2:33:21 PM9/24/12
to
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 03:25:48 -0400, the following appeared
with it; it sounds more like something out of Hollywood.
Care to elaborate? And cites would be appreciated.
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>On 09/23/2012 02:06 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>>> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>> Not exactly; science relies on observations, and constructs
>> and tests (but does not "rely on") models (hypotheses and
>> theories) to explain those observations.
>then explain the "brain in a jar" hypothesis
That's a scientific hypothesis? Sorry, but I'm unfamiliar
>On 09/23/2012 02:06 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>>> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>> Not exactly; science relies on observations, and constructs
>> and tests (but does not "rely on") models (hypotheses and
>> theories) to explain those observations.
>then explain the "brain in a jar" hypothesis
with it; it sounds more like something out of Hollywood.
Care to elaborate? And cites would be appreciated.
Bob Casanova
Sep 24, 2012, 2:36:33 PM9/24/12
to
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 03:03:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Syamsu
<nando_r...@yahoo.com>:
>On 23 sep, 10:05, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>>
>> I think this imparts a level of faith and some people shouldn't take
>> this to the limit of thinking science can answer every question and
>> religion cannot answer any questions
>>
>> for instance, there is no "theory of everything" for physics that can be
>> proved, in fact many supposedly scientific claims cannot be proved, they
>> are merely best fit models that are accepted by the mainstream until a
>> better model presents itself
>>
>> science it best suited to induction, not deduction
one of the main occupations of real theoretical physicists,
as contrasted with the idiocies in the tabloids and
religious screeds you rely on for "information".
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Syamsu
<nando_r...@yahoo.com>:
>On 23 sep, 10:05, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>>
>> I think this imparts a level of faith and some people shouldn't take
>> this to the limit of thinking science can answer every question and
>> religion cannot answer any questions
>>
>> for instance, there is no "theory of everything" for physics that can be
>> proved, in fact many supposedly scientific claims cannot be proved, they
>> are merely best fit models that are accepted by the mainstream until a
>> better model presents itself
>>
>> science it best suited to induction, not deduction
>There is a theory of everything
No, there is not; the search for a ToE (the *other* ToE) is
one of the main occupations of real theoretical physicists,
as contrasted with the idiocies in the tabloids and
religious screeds you rely on for "information".
John Stockwell
Sep 24, 2012, 2:49:24 PM9/24/12
to
On Sunday, September 23, 2012 2:05:14 AM UTC-6, Dale wrote:
> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
Best fit to the what? Data? Facts?
> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>
>
>
> I think this imparts a level of faith and some people shouldn't take
>
> this to the limit of thinking science can answer every question and
>
> religion cannot answer any questions
claim that religion answers *everything*.
>
>
>
> for instance, there is no "theory of everything" for physics that can be
>
> proved, in fact many supposedly scientific claims cannot be proved, they
>
> are merely best fit models that are accepted by the mainstream until a
>
> better model presents itself
between the theoreticians and the experimentalists. The theoreticians create
lovely structures which it is the job of the experimentalists to try to
explore and possibly knock down. The job of the experimentalists is to
try things that nobody has thought of, and when they build a structure of
empirical results, it is the job of the theoreticians to modify theoretical
understanding to accommodate the new experimental knowledge.
>
>
>
> science it best suited to induction, not deduction
in place and are deriving results from that. In science, we don't know
the axiomatic system, or if it is possible to create one.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dale
jillery
Sep 24, 2012, 3:06:17 PM9/24/12
to
finds more distateful.
John S. Wilkins
Sep 24, 2012, 6:05:15 PM9/24/12
to
Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:28:00 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins)
> wrote:
>
> >Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
> >
> >Best fit to what, exactly?
>
> Why, the facts of course! Oops, that means the facts underlie the
> best-fit models, which means that science relies on facts! :-)
So... you are agreeing now?
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:28:00 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins)
> wrote:
>
> >Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
> >
> >Best fit to what, exactly?
>
> Why, the facts of course! Oops, that means the facts underlie the
> best-fit models, which means that science relies on facts! :-)
>
> >[Akaike Information Criterion, I presume?]
>
> >> I think this imparts a level of faith and some people shouldn't take
> >> this to the limit of thinking science can answer every question and
> >> religion cannot answer any questions
> >
> >To a man with a religious hammer, everything is a faith nail. But I
> >think you strain the meaning of "faith" somewhat if you think that
> >scientific statements are on a par with religious doctrine.
>
> If they are on such a par, why call them "scientific"? OTOH, if some
> religious doctrines are on a par with scientific statements (i.e. they
> are best-fit models of empirical facts), why call them "religious"?
I don't think they are on a par; I thought you did. I think they are
> >[Akaike Information Criterion, I presume?]
>
> >> I think this imparts a level of faith and some people shouldn't take
> >> this to the limit of thinking science can answer every question and
> >> religion cannot answer any questions
> >
> >To a man with a religious hammer, everything is a faith nail. But I
> >think you strain the meaning of "faith" somewhat if you think that
> >scientific statements are on a par with religious doctrine.
>
> If they are on such a par, why call them "scientific"? OTOH, if some
> religious doctrines are on a par with scientific statements (i.e. they
> are best-fit models of empirical facts), why call them "religious"?
definitely not on a par. If a religious doctrine can be validated
through facts, it becomes science. So far, almost none have been.
>
> >> for instance, there is no "theory of everything" for physics that can be
> >> proved, in fact many supposedly scientific claims cannot be proved, they
> >> are merely best fit models that are accepted by the mainstream until a
> >> better model presents itself
> >>
> >Science (unlike revelation) takes time to acquire broader knowledge.
> >It's more expensive too. And you definitely get what you pay for in
> >epistemology.
> >> science it best suited to induction, not deduction
>
> OTOH, Elijah and Moses and Jesus seem to have had quite a difficult time
> acquiring "revelation". And it pretty much cost them everything they
> had.
Really? The acquisition cost them nothing. Acting on the revelations
> >> for instance, there is no "theory of everything" for physics that can be
> >> proved, in fact many supposedly scientific claims cannot be proved, they
> >> are merely best fit models that are accepted by the mainstream until a
> >> better model presents itself
> >>
> >Science (unlike revelation) takes time to acquire broader knowledge.
> >It's more expensive too. And you definitely get what you pay for in
> >epistemology.
> >> science it best suited to induction, not deduction
>
> OTOH, Elijah and Moses and Jesus seem to have had quite a difficult time
> acquiring "revelation". And it pretty much cost them everything they
> had.
seem to have cost them something. They chose to, though.
Syamsu
Sep 24, 2012, 7:35:42 PM9/24/12
to
or quanta, to explain phenomena, but the exhaustive explanation can
only be in reference to nothing. That is the theory of everything,
creatio ex nihilo. Still quanta and atoms also fit into creatio ex
nhilo. It is exactly described by some scientists how fermions are
derived from nothing. Fermions are the basic unit of existence for our
3 dimenional universe. There are existences below that level, but only
at the level of fermions can you speak of position and such in 3
dimensions.
Boikat
Sep 24, 2012, 8:36:41 PM9/24/12
to
On Sep 24, 6:40�pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 12:05�pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 23 sep, 10:05, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>
> > > I think this imparts a level of faith and some people shouldn't take
> > > this to the limit of thinking science can answer every question and
> > > religion cannot answer any questions
>
> > > for instance, there is no "theory of everything" for physics that can be
> > > proved, in fact many supposedly scientific claims cannot be proved, they
> > > are merely best fit models that are accepted by the mainstream until a
> > > better model presents itself
>
> > > science it best suited to induction, not deduction
>
> > > --
> > > Dale
>
> > There is a theory of everything, and it says that what choses is a
> > religious issue, and what is chosen is a scientific issue.
>
> > One has to take an axiom of nothing, or zero. Take any thing, like a
> > tree, or the sun, and put it in a frame of reference of nothing. If
> > you explan how to get from nothing being there, to a tree being there,
> > then you have exhausted all possible explanation, and there can be no
> > scientific explanation for a tree which can be better. Nothing or 0 is
> > the defnite limit to what reductionist explanation can be reduced to.
>
> All the other people in the thread use a frame of reference of atoms,
> or quanta, to explain phenomena,
You mean "reality"?
> On Sep 24, 12:05�pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 23 sep, 10:05, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>
> > > I think this imparts a level of faith and some people shouldn't take
> > > this to the limit of thinking science can answer every question and
> > > religion cannot answer any questions
>
> > > for instance, there is no "theory of everything" for physics that can be
> > > proved, in fact many supposedly scientific claims cannot be proved, they
> > > are merely best fit models that are accepted by the mainstream until a
> > > better model presents itself
>
> > > science it best suited to induction, not deduction
>
> > > --
> > > Dale
>
> > There is a theory of everything, and it says that what choses is a
> > religious issue, and what is chosen is a scientific issue.
>
> > One has to take an axiom of nothing, or zero. Take any thing, like a
> > tree, or the sun, and put it in a frame of reference of nothing. If
> > you explan how to get from nothing being there, to a tree being there,
> > then you have exhausted all possible explanation, and there can be no
> > scientific explanation for a tree which can be better. Nothing or 0 is
> > the defnite limit to what reductionist explanation can be reduced to.
>
> All the other people in the thread use a frame of reference of atoms,
> or quanta, to explain phenomena,
> but the exhaustive explanation can
> only be in reference to nothing.
> That is the theory of everything,
> creatio ex nihilo. Still quanta and atoms also fit into creatio ex
> nhilo. It is exactly described by some scientists how fermions are
> derived from nothing. Fermions are the basic unit of existence for our
> 3 dimenional universe. There are existences below that level, but only
> at the level of fermions can you speak of position and such in 3
> dimensions.
Boikat
Mike Dworetsky
Sep 25, 2012, 3:48:25 AM9/25/12
to
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Syamsu
Sep 25, 2012, 4:23:18 AM9/25/12
to
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
A MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION
OF THE FERMIONIC STATE
http://hypercomplex.xpsweb.com/articles/367/en/pdf/07-11.pdf
Bob Casanova
Sep 27, 2012, 1:00:52 PM9/27/12
to
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:33:21 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 03:25:48 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>On 09/23/2012 02:06 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>>> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>
>>> Not exactly; science relies on observations, and constructs
>>> and tests (but does not "rely on") models (hypotheses and
>>> theories) to explain those observations.
>
>>then explain the "brain in a jar" hypothesis
>
>That's a scientific hypothesis? Sorry, but I'm unfamiliar
>with it; it sounds more like something out of Hollywood.
>Care to elaborate? And cites would be appreciated.
Yeah, thought not...
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 03:25:48 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>On 09/23/2012 02:06 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>>> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>
>>> Not exactly; science relies on observations, and constructs
>>> and tests (but does not "rely on") models (hypotheses and
>>> theories) to explain those observations.
>
>>then explain the "brain in a jar" hypothesis
>
>That's a scientific hypothesis? Sorry, but I'm unfamiliar
>with it; it sounds more like something out of Hollywood.
>Care to elaborate? And cites would be appreciated.
Dale
Oct 21, 2012, 1:31:01 AM10/21/12
to
On 09/27/2012 01:00 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:33:21 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 03:25:48 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>> On 09/23/2012 02:06 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>>>> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>>
>>>> Not exactly; science relies on observations, and constructs
>>>> and tests (but does not "rely on") models (hypotheses and
>>>> theories) to explain those observations.
>>
>>> then explain the "brain in a jar" hypothesis
>>
>> That's a scientific hypothesis? Sorry, but I'm unfamiliar
>> with it; it sounds more like something out of Hollywood.
>> Care to elaborate? And cites would be appreciated.
>
> Yeah, thought not...
>
sorry, I must this,
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:33:21 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 03:25:48 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>> On 09/23/2012 02:06 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:02:13 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>>>> science does not rely on facts, it relies on "best fit models"
>>
>>>> Not exactly; science relies on observations, and constructs
>>>> and tests (but does not "rely on") models (hypotheses and
>>>> theories) to explain those observations.
>>
>>> then explain the "brain in a jar" hypothesis
>>
>> That's a scientific hypothesis? Sorry, but I'm unfamiliar
>> with it; it sounds more like something out of Hollywood.
>> Care to elaborate? And cites would be appreciated.
>
> Yeah, thought not...
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat
--
Dale
0 new messages