Quote from Turok:
ART:
>"Science" builds castles on the platform of many
>unknowns then proclaims "Science" is the king of
>the castle.
Science is only about learning. People proclaim.
JB
I disagree. Science is not only about learning, but assuming that the fundamental root of knowledge comes only from a hypothesis that can be tested and confirmed by other scientists. These laws are then generally reduced to their most simplistic mathematical representations. There is not a single physical law of nature that has not been reduced to mathematics.
Once a hypothesis is tested, retested and confirmed, then its relevance to other theories can be ascertained with mathematics. In fact, that is the whole premise behind a unified field theory and TOE. It took scientists the better half of the the 20'th century -- up to around 1983 -- Until the discovery of the W and Z particles, which led to a unification of weak and electromagnetic interactions since the particles are theorized to be identical above 100 GeV (very earliest conditions of the universe).
The point is that until that time, scientists were unsure if the forces could be combined -- Einstein worked on it until his death, but was unable to formulate a TOE.
Even today, scientists are still at a loss to combine the holy-grail of theories, the merging of quantum mechanics and general relativity.
I was just curious by a comment you made earlier about how you see no sign of creation when running experiments. If you honestly think that you can test a hypothesis of god by using science, you are sadly mistaken.
Sir Francis Bacon set a system of procedures through induction that led in part to the scientific method. However, you know as well as I that the entire premise of science is observation. Without observation, there is no science. Observation can only take place by processes both external of the observer and also within the observer.
The magic with science is that the observer is trained to use a rigorous system of formal logic to explain an observed process. In contrast, you and I can both go into an art museum and observe paintings together, but in doing so we both recognize that using logical induction to explain a painting is an incorrect way of interpreting what is observed.
In discussions about god, an even greater problem occurs. If god does exist, then there is the possibility that he exists outside of the laws, procedures and observations contained within the universe. This is exactly why science fails, because we are using process of induction from observed laws to prove the existence of a superset of laws -- and that can only remain an unprovable theory at best.
This is why science is an incomplete process for which to decipher god. That belongs to metaphysics, which in itself is not necessarily bad but outside the grasp of normal physics and everyday induction.
