Policy Question

[Michael Mooney]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Yes, Michael. That's called "theorizing".

A "theory" is presented, and then predictions are made from this theory. Those predictions are tested against empirical data, and the theory predicting the closest results to the observed data steps out as the temporary winner.

And I have to stress the temporary part, because very much Newton/Einstein-like, the next theory which might be a closer fit to the data might always lurk around the next corner.

Theories are invented not for their own sake, but to explain the data. The empirical data is always the prime motivator for explanation, and if you're mulling over some grand scheme which is clearly in contradiction of the data from the get-go, then you're wasting your time.

You have totally dodged my point.
What predictions and and empirical data validate M-theory? Is it not "science" then by your very myopic definition?

How about NASA's admission that what was before the Bang remains speculative? Is science not allowed to "speculate" until it has empirical evidence to support whatever "theory?"

Is envisioning what might lie beyond our cosmic event horizon wasted speculation since we probably will never know?

Your idea of what science may legitimately include is very small minded.... not to mention your vehement bigotry against mystics and what metaphysics might be... Oopse... I just did mention it.

I am done with this little confrontation in an inappropriate thread.

Michael

[lemit]

As a general observation, it's my impression of a lot of self-proclaimed mystics that they wouldn't know the mystical experience if it bit them in the synapse.

Just a general observation.

--lemit

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

You have totally dodged my point.
What predictions and and empirical data validate M-theory? Is it not "science" then by your very myopic definition?

No. M-Theory and String Theory in general is not "Science". What it is, is a massive attempt at working out brand new maths for explaining the universe. As such, it currently has limited application and predictive power. It's a work in progress. Hence, M-theory. But the root cause, once again, is to reach a point where empirical data can be described. There's that word, again...

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

How about NASA's admission that what was before the Bang remains speculative? Is science not allowed to "speculate" until it has empirical evidence to support whatever "theory?"

Due to the fact that no information whatsoever could cross the Big Bang from whatever was before and the universe after, you could speculate to your heart's content as to what was there before. But apart from ignoring the obvious point that there was no "there", in the classical sense, before the Big Bang, it has absolutely no explanatory power towards the current universe. You can speculate till you're blue in the face, but if its not testable, it's not science. My personal favourite is that there was just this big yellow rubber duck floating in the empty void. And then it exploded. And there is no way that any speculation from your point of view towards what was before the BB can disprove my Rubber Duck Hypothesis. So you can speculate, sure - but you cannot extract anything worth a tom tit's tosser from speculation unless there's supporting data. Why don't you get it?

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Is envisioning what might lie beyond our cosmic event horizon wasted speculation since we probably will never know?

Pretty much, yes. But don't let me stop you. Just make sure you open your threads regarding this in the "Strange Claims" Forum. Because it's not science. Unless you have data. In which case it will be Science, and you can open your threads regarding it basically anywhere relevant.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Your idea of what science may legitimately include is very small minded....

Calling the Scientific Method "small minded" is certainly your prerogative. But it works. I just wish you'd start understanding that simple concept.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

...not to mention your vehement bigotry against mystics and what metaphysics might be.

From Wiki: (my bold)

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The scientific method, however, made natural philosophy an empirical and experimental activity unlike the rest of philosophy, and by the end of the eighteenth century it had begun to be called "science" in order to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics became the philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence. Thus the original situation of metaphysics being integral with (Aristotelian) physics and science, has, in the West, become reversed so that scientists often consider metaphysics antithetical to the empirical sciences.

'Nuff said. I won't even bother with explaining why mysticism has no place at a Science Site. I think I've done my bit in exorcising that paricular evil here.

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I am done with this little confrontation in an inappropriate thread.

I don't think so. I'm sure you'll reply. But I think we've done enough thread-jacking here.

[lemit]

Boerseun,

Mysticism and science can get along just fine. They're vastly different ways of looking at the same world. It is possible to work toward a greater understanding of those things that can be understood while accepting that some things can't be understood.

That looks silly when I read it, so please don't ask me to explain it.

This seems off-topic. Is there a topic for it to be off?

Confusedly,

--lemit