[MP] ... theories aren't "proven" let alone b y themselves; they simply gain in static power the longer they remain "not dis-proven" by a scientist with a different hunch. In the end that still makes a theory no more than a hunch. It will ALWAYS be a hunch until it is proven wrong by a new hunch or proven as "fact." And a "fact" it is still nothing more than a hunch, just one with an official blessing for being the last one standing for long enough that no one bothers to question it anymore. At that point it takes heretical status to unseat the hunch, usually at the cost of one's profession, sometimes even of one's life. But it is still and *always* just a hunch.
[Krimel] I was with you on the whole theism thing but here you are just playing some silly spin gamea. "Hunch"? "Official hunch"? Hunch this! Theories are never, ever "proven". They can only be supported or disproven. This characteristic of the inductive method was well known from the get go. It is ludicrous to say that a "hunch" "stands for long enough that no one bothers to question it anymore." Scientific theories are always being questioned. Over and over which every new experiment, with each new study. In that sense, heresy is at the heart of science. All statements in science are tentative. Calling them "hunches" is just a lame attempt at being provocative. [MP] This is because that's all science is; the constant refinement / capsizing of hunches. That "in science a theory is as good as it ever gets" [and I completely agree with dmb on that] pretty much assures that this will always be the case. This actually defines the rather pedestrian limitation of science; always guessing, always trying to prove, forever seeking to be right, and as such never allowing itself enough room to actually comprehend. [Krimel] By its very nature science can never make anything more than tentative statements. That is its strength not a weakness. Your allusion to actual comprehension makes a common point. Science frequently takes a rap for this. It's the whole; science doesn't make us wiser; materialism doesn't produce happier lives. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda... So science is supposed to take the blame for what is and has always been the job of philosophers, theologians, politicians and artists. What a bunch of pussies. Science collects data and organizes it into theories. Scientists are doing their jobs and doing it extraordinarily well. It is the humanities that have fallen two centuries behind. Whatever the state of moral decline; whatever lack of "comprehension" there is; it results not from science but from the whole romantic mind set of sitting around whining while the world whizzes past. Since Newton philosophers have been playing catch up and basically sucking at it. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
