I am afraid you start from the 2nd step: first you accept whatever 'we' (humans) think as an evidence in the system we can absorb and evaluate (explain) and then - *in the framework of that *we imagine our science. Indeed not much more than a belief system of today. Not too different from the so called religion, which accepts hearsay as truth and evidence, the bible as proof and builds on such belief system. The workings of the world are not shrinkable into such 'truth' we use as much as we can. The 'new evidence' - you say - that *overturns* tomorrow today's theory is just a similar belief. "Tentative" with a bucketful of pretension - called either scientific or religious. Flat Earth...?
The whole idea behind my 1st post in this topic was *questioning 'evidence' via our human restrictedness - vs the unlimit(able)ed workings of the world*- by far not coverable by us. We *observe* *what we can and how we can* and *explain *by *what we know*. It was different in B.C. times, in ~1500AD, yesterday and will be different 500/5000 years from now. And: I don't buy the nanosec as small, nature can use it as very big, and vice versa, Brent's timespan can be a 'blinking'. Magnitude-scales are insecure: we like our body-size median. John Mikes On 5/24/10, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 24 May 2010 23:08, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Stathis, > > > > you seemed bored: you jumped into assigning a bit more to my text than it > > really contained: > > "...saying that we can know nothing about it at all..." > > what I did not say. I spoke about a 'hypothetical' functioning of the > world > > (read the 'imagining"it") > > and it refers to how we explain 'it' (i.e. whatever we 'got' - > explaining > > rightly or wrongly). > > Bruno assumes that we are digitalizable machines - eo ipso numbers are > 'in' > > for him. A religious devotee assumes that we are God's creations - with > all > > pertinent explanations and combinations. > > I assume "we don't know". > > The 'system' what conventional sciences developed over the past millennia > is > > not so perfect, in spite of all the technology we developed. There are > > faults (due to imperfections). paradoxes and - "mind boggling". We > reached > > such a complicated (complex?) level that nobody dares to start from anew > in > > looking into all the facets believed to be "true". Theories are > sacrosanct, > > the network is all encompassing and we still do not know a lot of the > > basics. We assume them. And build on that. > > It sounds like you are talking about religion rather than science. > Science is always tentative: a theory can be overturned tomorrow by > new evidence, and finding such evidence is one of the most impressive > things a scientist can do. > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.