John Mikes writes:
> would you condone to include in your (appreciated) post below the words at
> the * I plant into your text?
> The words: "in the (scientific?) belief system we have TODAY about our
> interpretation of whatever epistemically we so far learned about the
OK, I could accept the inclusion of that clause.
> That would underline your subsequent sentence - if you kindly stop
> denigrating the term 'metaphysics' - a pejoration of the same 'carried away'
I guess those physicists and philosophers in the Empiricist tradition have
my mind against theology and metaphysics. Sorry, can't help it.
> The word 'prediction' also sends the chill alongside my spine: how can a
> model based on a model predict events subject to impact from 'beyond model'
> The many results of science-technology should not lead us into a generalized
> acceptance of the model-based thinking. This list is a good example.
Prediction in science is not like prediction by oracles and prophets. If you
umbrella with you when you see that the sky is cloudy, you are implicitly
scientific prediction based on a meteorological model. Science is really just
sense writ large.
> John Mikes
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:54 PM
> Subject: RE: The anti-roadmap - an alternative 'Theology'
> As Brent Meeker has pointed out, physical theories are just models to make
> predictions about how the world works*. If physists get carried away and say
> "this is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" then they
> talking metaphysics, not physics.
> Stathis Papaioannou
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at