Re: Flat Earth Theory To Be Taught In Science Classes

• From: Tim Daneliuk <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: 12 Oct 2005 15:22:33 EDT

fredfighter@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Tom Watson wrote:

You would find little solace in mathematics.

Mathematics itself is incomplete because mathematical
logic is incomplete (formally).

Do you suppose, therefor, that mathematics would benefit from
a consideration of Intelligent Authorship?

So what?  What has this
to do with "solace"?

Do you suppose that by including metaphysical considerations
mathematics could then transend that logical incompleteness?

There already are at least deep philosophical considerations
to logical incompleteness.  Most notably"  How can something
be logically true, and yet not provably so (as an epistemic matter)?

Would that then help mathematicians to solve previously unsolvable
problems, prove previously unprovable theora etc?

I have read far deeper than you (apparently) could imagine. I have not
limited myself to a single discipline, but have tried to understand the
possible connections between science, metaphysics, mathematics,
religion, and "other" belief systems. This requires a *breadth and
depth* far greater than you seem to be able to parse.

Do you suppose that concurrent consideration of science, metaphysics,
mathematics, religion, and "other" belief systems, as well as their
connections and relations does NOT require, nor would even benefit
from, fundamental internal changes to either?

Would you consider that changing one to more closely resemble
the other would simply introduce ambiguity?

I would "suppose" that I do not yet have answers for any of these questions,
a may well never.  I cannot (yet) suggest the degree of influence a
yet-to-be understood intellectual model might have on *any* discipline
in the future.  But I can "suppose" some other things too:

a) The presumption that every discipline is best investigated in total
   isolation to most or all others is suspect.  Philosophy affects
   epistemology which affects everything.  Failing to have a discussion about
   first propositions because "it's just not Science" (for example) is
   a deadly way of thinking.

b) There is no reason to fear more inter-disciplinary exchange.  An honest
   and competent Scientist and an honest and competent Theologian will do
   no harm to either field, and may even improve one or both.  In the worst
   case, neither field will be affected at all.

c) The fear that we are going to transform a particular field to more
   resemble another one is bogus.  Honest people seek better and better
   approximations of Truth.  They let their observations and rational
   faculties lead them to shape the disciplines in question.  They do
   not cling to some orthodox fundamentalism in the face of new data
   or contrary evidence.  Say a credible case for "turtles all the way down"
   could be made.  Then this should reshape Science.  Say macro-evolution
   is demonstrated beyond any shadow of any doubt.  Then the people who
   hold to literal 6day creation stories should reinterpet them accordingly.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk     tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Key:         http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
.

• References:
  • Flat Earth Theory To Be Taught In Science Classes
    • From: Tom Watson
  • Re: Flat Earth Theory To Be Taught In Science Classes
    • From: Tim Daneliuk

• Prev by Date: Re: How Do You Like Us Now? - OT
• Next by Date: Re: Wood grain filler
• Previous by thread: Re: Flat Earth Theory To Be Taught In Science Classes
• Next by thread: Re: Flat Earth Theory To Be Taught In Science Classes
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

• Security
• UNIX
• Linux
• Coding
• Usenet

• Archive
• About
• Privacy
• Search
• Imprint