06-05-2004 17:09									#361
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich How is that some necessary aspect of science, that you can keep doing so?

Once you have examined all the data, the theory is no longer predictive (since you can no longer test it). Since being predictive is a prerequisite of a scientific theory, your theory ceases to be scientific.

quote: Because scientists hadn't explained relativity in 1700, does that mean that science doesn't explain it? Science, the study of the universe, explains it. It takes a while, though.

Science didn't explain relativity in 1700 (I don't believe I am having to argue this...). You said that sciecne does (present tense) explain quantum gravity. I pointed out that it does not (although it may do in the future).

quote: BUT, if you are using it for cause, you MUST admit that it's not requiring some intelligent being, and that you are really asking "how".

I never said that it requires some intelligent being (as is quite clear from my original post). 'How' and 'why' are quite different here. The question 'Why do the gauge bosons of the weak nuclear force have mass?' has a quite different answer ('because the electroweak symmetry is broken', which we know for sure) to 'How do the gauge bosons of the weak nuclear force gain mass?' (a question to which we do not have the answer).

quote: No, I don't mean "conforms to some rule", I mean it does stuff (inaction is included in this). It somehow has to decide (for lack of a better word) what stuff to do. The mechanism for deciding is called a natural law.

You have a strange definition of 'natural law' because you seem not to care whether the 'law' can be writen down or expressed in some form. By your definition, I will admit, everything would have a natural law, since everything 'does stuff'. But you must then admit that not every 'natural law' need be a law in our usual, where it can be used to predict the interaction of the object.