Quote:
...the scientific method has been unsuccessful at disproving the existence of god. Therefore, since god has not been disproved we call god knowledge
If you know anything about science, you should also know that there has to be a falsifiable hypothesis about the entity you'd like to build knowledge from. So I guess first you'll have to present such a hypothesis.
Quote:
Quote:
So if you actually have an example where knowledge has been found in science by means of a proof, I'd be interested in seeing it.
The problem I see is that you limiting your definition of "proof" to the mathematical/logical sense (hence my original assertion that you were a mathematician). There are many other ways to prove things which is why I bring up the Scientific Method. Proof is merely the steps taken to affirm that your original hypothesis is true.
Exactly. So maybe you would care to give me an example of a hypothesis that science actually says is the truth. Only the layman think that the physical theories actually says anything about how it actually is in reality. A true scientist realizes that theories are just models of how it could be. If it actually is true, you will never know so it's no point in trying to prove it.
Quote:
Example: neutrinos. [...]
in short, experiments PROVED theory.
Of course not. In order to actually prove a hypothesis by means of experiments, you will have to perform every possible experiment even remotely related to that hypothesis, infinitely many times and continue for ever and ever. Not very practical and that's why you don't do proofs in science.
Since you continue to try to turn this into a competition about who went to the finest schools, I guess you went to what you think is the finest of them all and that you hold at least a Ph.D. in theoretical physics. In my book that doesn't matter since I judge you from your arguments and not from who you are or what fancy degrees you might have.
Last edited by AndersA; 03/16/06 19:11.
