Science Forums 2

[Buffy]

Welcome to the Lion's Den Mr. Putnam! You use a lot of awfully big words, and I'm kind of a simple gal, so let me summarize what I think I heard you say here:

1) You "think" a lot of things are wrong with physics and cosmology (you didn't have time to include Evolution, but I suppose you'll get there soon enough). You'll find we value opinions around here, but only empirical evidence is taken seriously.

2) You claim that physical theories do not explain their causes, but do not explain why a cause is relevant to a theory being empirically provable. Your definition of "cause" seems to point to--although you seem to studiously avoid saying it directly--what most folks would call "metaphysics" or "religion." These are not scientific areas of human discourse and do not have a useful place within the scientific method. They're not wrong, a lot of folks who are heavily involved in science also believe in a higher power, but also believe that this has nothing to do with science. "Render unto Newton..."

3) You claim that no empirical evidence exists for any theories and if they were tested they would prove to be wrong.

4) You claim that theories are "internally consistent", which a lot of us would take as meaning they produce accurate and repeatable results, but do not explain why its bad that theories that are accepted as valid by scientists produce repeatable, empirically proven results.

5) You claim that time is not measurable. Einstein proved that it is relative and differs by the relative speed of the observer and this has been shown repeatedly through empirical experiments to be a valid theory.

There are lots of postulates that are shown mathematically for which there is no *current* physical, empirical evidence, but this is not sufficient argument under the scientific method to show that they are wrong or require a "theory of causes."

We'd be greatly interested (not to say being challenged to disprove, and being greatly entertained) to hear your responses to these issues. We will do nothing to stifle your opinions, as the scientific method requires that *all* questions posed about a theory be entertained, but realize that such questions can be irrelevant because they invoke non-scientific concepts, and may reasonably be refuted as "science" on those grounds alone. This is not "closed-mindedness," but rather an adherence to logic (which unfortunately you deride as being a mere "crude approximation" of the "truth."). There are thousands of years of development in the scientific method, and while its proponents will willingly admit that it does not *explain* the existence of a creator, many will argue vociferously on the metaphysical side that claiming that science is irrelevant because there is an intelligent creator is unnecessary and offensive.

Cheers,
Buffy