Science Stoppers

by Coded Logic 17 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Coded Logic

  A Science Stopper is " a hypothesis that makes no testable or useful predictions and therefore prevents any science from being performed based on that hypothesis." A common example of this would be the claim that God(s) created our universe. Having no way of telling "created" universes apart from "non-created" universes prevents the claim from ever being verified or from being debunked.

  When he theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli was presented with untestable hypothesis by his students he would use the phrase, "It's not only not right - it's not even wrong." When you make a prediction and that claim is shown to be right or shown to be wrong there is an increase in knowledge. However, when the claim cannot be tested there is noting gained. It's just an empty ad hoc. While these sorts of things make for great premises for a movie plot (e.g. The Matrix) they sever no function for making determinations about reality.

  When someone says 'you're not even wrong' it implies that "not only are you not making a valid point in a discussion, but you don't even understand the nature of the discussion itself , or the things that need to be understood in order to participate."
• 

  stillin

  Sort of like making a statement that Jesus was invisibly enthroned in heaven in the year 1914?

  No way to demonstrate it or to refute it.
• 

  Heaven

  "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens
• 

  prologos

  More and more theories become testable, and are refined because

  the test equipment becomes more sophisticated, or

  better questions were derived from previous tests.

  who is to say such questions pertaining to "origins" will not come from research into the unknown?

  rejecting the idea of an creator might turn out to be "not even to be wrong" too.. In the meantime

  Is it not a valid topic contemplating, debating?
• 

  Coded Logic

  Things which don't exist and things for which there is no evidence appear identical. Until such a time as there is evidence we reject claims. Rejecting such claims is not "not even wrong." All beliefs are provisional. When we have a reason to change our minds we do so at that time. We don't just accept things and hope they will turn out to be true later. And rejecting a claim doesn't mean you're taking the opposite side. You can reject two opposing propositions simultaneously - I am niether convinced that there is a creator nor am I convinced that there is no creator.
• 

  Twitch

  More and more theories become testable, and are refined because

  the test equipment becomes more sophisticated, or

  better questions were derived from previous tests.

  Correct. Also, more and more theories are rejected for the same reasons.

  who is to say such questions pertaining to "origins" will not come from research into the unknown?

  Much that was unknown is now known due to scientific method and observable facts; we now know more than ever about our origins and the universe because of it.

  Perhaps one day we will unlock the secret of our origin, and will no longer need the idea of a creator or mystery therein.

  rejecting the idea of an creator might turn out to be "not even to be wrong" too.. In the meantime

  Is it not a valid topic contemplating, debating?

  Rejecting a creator is correct until such time as clear and irrefutable evidence proves it wrong. Everyone seems to have their own take on it, which only proves people have an opinion.

  Contemplating such is as valid as speculating the number of leprechauns there are.

  Debating it in scientific terms has always been and continues to be foolish. Assuming one can speak in scientific terms that is
• 

  prologos

  what we can test is the conditions that exist at/ before the expansion of the universe, the energy household of the expanding universe, and from these results make inferences of conditions beyond the knowledge horizon, the realm of the origins

  This is not vodoo, and is the subject of serious study. analize the implications of Penroseses works for example.

  science should stop at nothing or rather

  find out more about of what is called 'nothing'.

  and really is not nothing at all, when you read about it.

  and take gravity research. Keppler saw the 'square at distance effect in his 3 laws, Newton added the two body influence, Einstein made it a warping, tensioning of space, Hicks made it a particle. perhaps a graviton exchange, Cern not sure whether they really found that boson. or not. work in progress of a palpable but still not understood force.

  Even scientist/technicians get carried away : remember the COBE people referring to "the hand of god?"
• 

  Coded Logic

  Serriously Prologos, if you're going to take the time to write something - at least have the decency to complete your thoughts. No one knows what you're talking about when you write only half sentences.
• 

  prologos

  coded logic, I am not trying to be indecent, I truly can take whatever thoughts are left for me only so far, and appreciate your's or any comments to help me further along.

  I hope to stimulate some thoughts, particularly mine, on a subject that should be dear to all of us , but only a few are qualified to debate well.

  thank you for your help.
• 

  cofty

  science should stop at nothing or rather find out more about of what is called 'nothing'. and really is not nothing at all, when you read about it.

  ...