That is a "wonderful" advice to all scientists! Never use your imagination, until after you have found an answer.
That is it in a nut shell. That is exactly the situation with the mainstream science of today. They stick to what they already know, and that is it. No imagination!
Susan Doris Wrote:
> :) No matter - it is the pleasure of discussionQuote
I don't know whether to feel flattered or
> offended (kidding).
> which makes life interesting.
> Yes, but I realise how important it is not toQuote
It's a curious characterisation of my
> stance: "a gap between fantasy and reality." Where
> we appear to differ is on the matter of
> naturalism. Your philosophical premise is that all
> of reality is explainable naturalistically.
> insert any kind of imaginative idea where the
> answers are not yet available, and in many cases,
> never will be.
> I can assure you I do!Quote
Where I differ from this is that I'm fully
> willing to face the fact that we encounter parts
> of reality which utterly defy naturalistic
> explanation, and I don't think you're fully
> appreciating that.
> I think I'll just quibble slightly with the phraseQuote
One place is the low-entropy beginning of
> the Universe, the other is consciousness. There's
> no fantasy here on my part. We are faced with very
> real, deep mystery.
> 'deep mystery'. Yes we humans have a myriad ways
> to categorise things, but the phrase you use
> carries implications of 'impossible ever to
> know'. You are almost certainly right in this, and
> there are only a few billion years left for any
> life to exist on this planet, and for the solar
> system to exist, so at the end of all that, those
> mysteries will rmain!
> And I'd say for obvious, very clear reasons!! I'veQuote
It's interesting to me that atheists will
> consider a multiverse as a way of explaining the
> low-entropy beginning, but they won't consider
> some kind of intelligence at the heart of reality
> as a potential explanation. There's no tangible
> proof for either position. But one is massively
> favoured, while the other is taboo. The favoured
> one is naturalistic and the taboo one is
> metaphysical, and that seems to be the real bone
> of contention here.
> been a member of the JREF (now IS) form as long as
> I've been a member here. I've learnt so much in
> this last part of my life.
> And I for one have very much appreciated the wayQuote
And really, my original essay AoM was all
> about this very issue.
> you have participated so interestingly. There are
> times when an AoM can be very precious about
> attempting to defend his/her way-out beliefs!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25-Jun-19 07:43 by greengirl5.