- Joined
- Jul 4, 2009
- Messages
- 763
I would ask the mod to step in at this point, but he is a self confessed sceptic too.
As I recall, my own question remains unanswered and no it has not been discussed by anyone but myself. An explanation is required or your accusations are invalid. Can it be that scepticism has its own agenda and uses science as a cover?:
If this is not ad hominem then I'm at a loss to think what would beIt still seems that this is reallty just an idea you have about how things are, perhaps influenced by a grudge against science rooted in bad teachers/schooling from a point earlier in your past.
As I recall, my own question remains unanswered and no it has not been discussed by anyone but myself. An explanation is required or your accusations are invalid. Can it be that scepticism has its own agenda and uses science as a cover?:
Not a peep, not a protestation, not an answer from anyone?Formal logic is our word based gift from nature that helps us understand what's going on.
Science and scientific mathematics avoid formal logic because science is not logical. An idea of what physics thinks of logic can be found here:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/logic.htm
It is in the nature of science that something being proved must also be able to be disproved.
The sceptical view of science is that it will someday reach a mythical pinnacle where everything will be explained - a theory of everything, contrary to the idea of disproof.
This is, first not science and second illogical, as a theory of everything is impossible because it's impossible to be sure that you know what everything is.
The prevailing opinion on this forum is directed towards not seeming to believe or denying the very quintessence of the science it supports.
It may be a good idea to sort out where we all stand regarding such things?