NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Science
From: Brooke Clarke
Date: 2005 Aug 29, 11:23 -0700
From: Brooke Clarke
Date: 2005 Aug 29, 11:23 -0700
Hi Alex: I don't think so. Science is an objective way to choose between alternative theories by using logical testing. The currently believed theory may or may not be the truth. For example for some time scientists believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. They also believed that the Earth was flat. For a long time Newtonian mechanics was believed to describe motion of everything. Currently we have a number of different theories to describe different types of things like electromagnetic waves, gravity, etc, but there are a number of proposed "Unified" theories being looked into where a single theory may be able to describe many things. Have Fun, Brooke Clarke, N6GCE -- w/Java http://www.PRC68.com w/o Java http://www.pacificsites.com/~brooke/PRC68COM.shtml http://www.precisionclock.com Alexandre E Eremenko wrote: > I agree that this is way out of the list scope, > but on my opinion, the issue is so important that > I have to reply to this: > > On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Mike Hannibal wrote: > > >>We also need to be careful here: "Science" is simply a >>framework of belief, a set of rules that determine >>whether something is or isn't "science". > > > Science is not just "a framework of belief". > It is very different from all other "frameworks of belief". > It is not a set of rules to determine "what is "science", > it is a set of rules to determine what is TRUE. > The ONLY set of rules available to determine this. > > Alex. > >