Natural science is very helpful to keep our feet firmly on the ground in avoidance of metaphysical flights of fancy. While our level of knowledge is exiting and very satisfying, and helpful, we must not get carried away with it.
You are asking for an impossibility. Our powers of synthetic prediction is only as good as the models obtained from past event analysis. If it didn't happen yet we most probably will not be able to predict it. Our accuracy of prediction will also only increase with increased frequency of the event. As usual the student in a specific field appreciates his / her lack of knowledge the more he / she gets a better grasp of the object of study. In this way the people ignorant to a specific area of study display a severely inflated blind trust in science's ability to predict reality - or even in the scientific models representing reality. Our egos are stasified with our general knowledge of nature - an ego conversely equivalent to an individual's actual knowledge. Our self established sets of rules weaving stories about reality holds just until the next popular theory or even paradigm shift causes us to revise our stories and start the cycle anew. On Mar 16, 4:20 pm, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree. But can anyone tell me why we are unable to predict things like > tsunamis? They sound too obvious to me, given the level of science. > > On Mar 16, 2011 3:50 PM, "einseele" <[email protected]> wrote: > Look for medical attention, your are verging the point of no return > > On Mar 16, 3:59 am, "Serenity Smiles" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Ok I will attempt to try to explain as much as I can for the moment. The > > truth is there is no hea... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
