Creationism and other doctrines. Was Mindforth
bruce.rennie at shell.com.au
Wed Dec 18 22:06:07 EST 2002
"Alex McDonald" <alex_mcd at btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<atqt4c$i9l$1 at knossos.btinternet.com>...
> "John R. Strohm" <strohm at airmail.net> wrote in message
> news:D1A854DAF441903C.E66E26A07BFE37EE.9281BCC976EA22C3 at lp.airnews.net...
> > Dennis, what you are missing is that you are in fact expressing "faith"
> > you express the concept of "observable" and "repeatable". I.e., you are
> > expressing FAITH that an observable, repeatable phenomenon is in FACT both
> > observable and repeatable.
> Your observer is obviously human, as an act of faith is involved. What of
> non-human obervers whose state is changed by the act of observing something?
> For instance, a geiger counter?
> > Dr. Stephen Hawking showed, many years ago, that existing theory allows
> > the existence of regions of space-time that are flat-out unobservable. We
> > DO NOT and CANNOT know what is happening in those regions.
> The laws of physics appear to be the same whereever we look in the
An act of faith is expressed in this statement, as we are unable to go
there and make tests. We are not able to acertain that other effects
are taking place that hide what is going on. Any assumptions are
matters of faith.
> observable universe. There may be parts of the universe that are
> unobservable and that are not black holes. But as such a part has (by
> definition) no effect upon us, any theory about the nature of physical law
> there is untestable, and is hence unscientific.
> But for black holes, this is not true. We know, for instance, the mass, the
> spin and the entropy inside a black hole -- without looking inside. And some
> testable theories (presently untestable give the limitations of technology,
> but as they are testable they are scientific) claim that physical law is the
> same inside a black hole as outside, right up to the point of the
> singularity where quantum gravity takes over.
An interesting statement, testable and untestable. Again an assumption
is being made as to the testability of something. If we can't test it,
it is not testable. If we create a test but can't perform the test,
does this make it science or faith.
> Alex McDonald
More information about the Neur-sci