Re: No Intelligence Allowed

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> Now, that's cute. I thought that epistemology, in the general sense,

> was covered in philosophy classes. If ID is covered, well then, you'd

> have to cover philosophy of science in general - and that really isn't

> a science course.

>

> This whole argument is totally inane.

I think that philosophy of science should have some coverage in science courses.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 10/24/08, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote:

> Wow, your science classes were several degrees better than mine -

> basically we were given lists of dry facts to memorize with a little

> inane verbiage between them. How many miles to the sun, etc. etc.

> Nothing was ever covered about disagreements among the authorities

> and debate was certainly not encouraged. We were the tabula rasas

> sent there to soak up information from the authorities.

I didn't say my science classes were better than that (some were, some

weren't), but I'm not going to advocate that science classes remain

perpetually horrible and valueless classes.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Renate-

These sorts of questions suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of the

nature of science itself. In science, there's no such thing as a

fact, at least not in the religious sense of the word in which " fact "

= " absolute truth " . There are observations, there is data, and there

are hypotheses. Even the most well-supported scientific theory is

still considered a theory, not a fact. The fact that many scientific

principles and theories are called " laws " helps create a great deal of

unfortunate confusion in the lay public.

As to the question of how you can " know " something and then change

your mind... do you really have a problem understanding that? Have you

never been sure of something and then discovered that you were wrong?

One of the fundamental strengths of the scientific method is that

theories are *always* open to falsification. Hypotheses must always be

testable. But scientists are, of course, human, and everyone makes

mistakes and nobody understands everything. When you add commercial

incentives to the mix, it's no surprise that people's attitudes are

further biased -- it happens in every field, not just science. And

then of course there's the problem of the media and science reportage,

which are both abysmal and hardly ever provide an accurate picture of

what's actually going on in the world of research.

-

> Because something happens the same way 90% of the time,

> does that " prove " it is a fact? What about the 1 in 10,000 times

> when something different happens? Or one in ten million times? What

> about all the scientific " truths " that are being redefined or changed

> as new data comes in. Short of 2 + 2 = 4 there are very few " hard "

> facts in my world and a lot more in the grey area.

>

> Genetic engineers thought they " knew " DNA but now are finding out

> about myelination and the switches that react to environmental cues,

> and that DNA in males causes some conditions that in females causes a

> completely different thing - in other words, their " hard " facts that

> they think they know are getting wildcards.

>

> Even protons and neutrons are turning out to not be as simple as once

> thought. How can you " know " something and then change your mind

> later?

[Guest guest]

Can you offer an example of a law that is not fact?

I certainly agree that theories are not fact and that theories (hypotheses) need

to be examined in light of evidence and tested. That is the scientific method,

pure and simple.

And cCertainly there have been many theories that were believed to be fact that

have been disproven. (Ex: During the Renaissance, Galileo helped provide

evidence for the Copernican theory of a sun-centered universe, disproving the

long-held theory that the earth was the center of the universe.)

But, what law has been proven not to be a fact? That is, can you name any

scientific law that has been called a law in the past 100 years that you have

evidence to show it's not a fact? Not a theory. Something we have called a law

in the scientific community.

How about the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Do you have any evidence to

show they are not laws? How about gravity? Any evidence that gravity does not

exist?

Personally, I don't think that scientists ever elevate anything to the level of

a law and call it a law unless it's been proven. But I'd love to learn from

any examples you might have.

mak

Re: No Intelligence Allowed

Renate-

These sorts of questions suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of the

nature of science itself. In science, there's no such thing as a

fact, at least not in the religious sense of the word in which " fact "

= " absolute truth " . There are observations, there is data, and there

are hypotheses. Even the most well-supported scientific theory is

still considered a theory, not a fact. The fact that many scientific

principles and theories are called " laws " helps create a great deal of

unfortunate confusion in the lay public.

As to the question of how you can " know " something and then change

your mind... do you really have a problem understanding that? Have you

never been sure of something and then discovered that you were wrong?

One of the fundamental strengths of the scientific method is that

theories are *always* open to falsification. Hypotheses must always be

testable. But scientists are, of course, human, and everyone makes

mistakes and nobody understands everything. When you add commercial

incentives to the mix, it's no surprise that people's attitudes are

further biased -- it happens in every field, not just science. And

then of course there's the problem of the media and science reportage,

which are both abysmal and hardly ever provide an accurate picture of

what's actually going on in the world of research.

-

> Because something happens the same way 90% of the time,

> does that " prove " it is a fact? What about the 1 in 10,000 times

> when something different happens? Or one in ten million times? What

> about all the scientific " truths " that are being redefined or changed

> as new data comes in. Short of 2 + 2 = 4 there are very few " hard "

> facts in my world and a lot more in the grey area.

>

> Genetic engineers thought they " knew " DNA but now are finding out

> about myelination and the switches that react to environmental cues,

> and that DNA in males causes some conditions that in females causes a

> completely different thing - in other words, their " hard " facts that

> they think they know are getting wildcards.

>

> Even protons and neutrons are turning out to not be as simple as once

> thought. How can you " know " something and then change your mind

> later?

[Guest guest]

LOL!

> > Wow, your science classes were several degrees better than mine -

> > basically we were given lists of dry facts to memorize with a little

> > inane verbiage between them. How many miles to the sun, etc. etc.

> > Nothing was ever covered about disagreements among the authorities

> > and debate was certainly not encouraged. We were the tabula rasas

> > sent there to soak up information from the authorities.

>

> I didn't say my science classes were better than that (some were, some

> weren't), but I'm not going to advocate that science classes remain

> perpetually horrible and valueless classes.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

As an excuse to inject some Christian theology, apparently.

Nothing really worse than hastily covered, half baked philosophy. And

if you hadn't realized it, I don't think that ID is considered one of

the landmarks of scientific philosophy. Is there a major work?

> Gene,

>

> > Now, that's cute. I thought that epistemology, in the general sense,

> > was covered in philosophy classes. If ID is covered, well then,

> you'd

> > have to cover philosophy of science in general - and that really

> isn't

> > a science course.

> >

> > This whole argument is totally inane.

>

> I think that philosophy of science should have some coverage in

> science courses.

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gene,

>> I think that philosophy of science should have some coverage in

>> science courses.

> As an excuse to inject some Christian theology, apparently.

No, because it makes no sense to discuss science without discussing

the scientific method and it makes no sense to discuss the scientific

method without discussing some of the philosophy and assumptions

behind it.

> Nothing really worse than hastily covered, half baked philosophy. And

> if you hadn't realized it, I don't think that ID is considered one of

> the landmarks of scientific philosophy. Is there a major work?

It is a current controversy, and interesting.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > Nothing really worse than hastily covered, half baked philosophy.

> And

> > if you hadn't realized it, I don't think that ID is considered one

> of

> > the landmarks of scientific philosophy. Is there a major work?

>

> It is a current controversy, and interesting.

A controversy maybe, but where, among whom, and on what basis? It's

certainly not a scientific curiosity, since ID is scientifically

bankrupt and enjoys no scientific support. And unlike the arguments

we might make over nutrition, which sadly are at least partly

relegated to the fringe, it's not an evidence-based disagreement

either. But then the actual scientific debate over heart disease,

nutrition and related issues is actually quite a bit more robust than

most people would guess from the popular media.

-

[Guest guest]

,

These threads are getting tangled. The below was in response to

message 104264 which was stressing the quantifiable-ness of science.

Maybe some of my own frustrations with the scientific method got

worked in there as well. I've never had an easy time with Occam's

Razor or even the whole hypothesis thing - learning occurs when

someone realizes they don't know something.

Science seems to take it all backwards and start out by guessing an

answer to something and then trying to prove you're right. Maybe

that's the root of some of the problems, in my mind!

I tend to spend too much time appreciating chaos and living outside

the box. I live for the exceptions to the rule. My idea of my God

entertains me endlessly because whenever someone tries to put Him or

His Creation in a box, He finds a way out. LOL!

--- In , Idol <paul.idol@...>

wrote:

>

> Renate-

>

> These sorts of questions suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of

the

> nature of science itself. In science, there's no such thing as a

> fact, at least not in the religious sense of the word in

which " fact "

> = " absolute truth " . There are observations, there is data, and

there

> are hypotheses. Even the most well-supported scientific theory is

> still considered a theory, not a fact. The fact that many

scientific

> principles and theories are called " laws " helps create a great deal

of

> unfortunate confusion in the lay public.

>

> As to the question of how you can " know " something and then change

> your mind... do you really have a problem understanding that? Have

you

> never been sure of something and then discovered that you were

wrong?

> One of the fundamental strengths of the scientific method is that

> theories are *always* open to falsification. Hypotheses must always

be

> testable. But scientists are, of course, human, and everyone makes

> mistakes and nobody understands everything. When you add

commercial

> incentives to the mix, it's no surprise that people's attitudes

are

> further biased -- it happens in every field, not just science. And

> then of course there's the problem of the media and science

reportage,

> which are both abysmal and hardly ever provide an accurate picture

of

> what's actually going on in the world of research.

>

> -

>

> > Because something happens the same way 90% of the time,

> > does that " prove " it is a fact? What about the 1 in 10,000 times

> > when something different happens? Or one in ten million times?

What

> > about all the scientific " truths " that are being redefined or

changed

> > as new data comes in. Short of 2 + 2 = 4 there are very few " hard "

> > facts in my world and a lot more in the grey area.

> >

> > Genetic engineers thought they " knew " DNA but now are finding out

> > about myelination and the switches that react to environmental

cues,

> > and that DNA in males causes some conditions that in females

causes a

> > completely different thing - in other words, their " hard " facts

that

> > they think they know are getting wildcards.

> >

> > Even protons and neutrons are turning out to not be as simple as

once

> > thought. How can you " know " something and then change your mind

> > later?

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Oct 24, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Masterjohn wrote:

> Gene,

>

> >> I think that philosophy of science should have some coverage in

> >> science courses.

>

> > As an excuse to inject some Christian theology, apparently.

>

> No, because it makes no sense to discuss science without discussing

> the scientific method and it makes no sense to discuss the scientific

> method without discussing some of the philosophy and assumptions

> behind it.

>

yeah - I think that it's a blatant attempt to inject Christian

theology, whether you admit it or not.

Intelligent Design, which cannot conclude that there is a God based on

any coherent notion of the scientific method, would not be part of a

discussion of the scientific method, except with an agenda to bring it

into the curriculum disingenuously.

>

>

> > Nothing really worse than hastily covered, half baked philosophy.

> And

> > if you hadn't realized it, I don't think that ID is considered one

> of

> > the landmarks of scientific philosophy. Is there a major work?

>

> It is a current controversy, and interesting.

>

It is not a scientific controversy.

>

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

Renate-

> Science seems to take it all backwards and start out by guessing an

> answer to something and then trying to prove you're right. Maybe

> that's the root of some of the problems, in my mind!

Again, this is a fundamental misunderstanding. Science starts by

looking at phenomena in the natural world, proceeds to formulate

hypotheses to explain said phenomena, uses those hypotheses to

generate testable predictions, and then attempts to falsify those

predictions through experimentation and observation.

How else would you have it proceed, anyway?

-

[Guest guest]

,

> A controversy maybe, but where, among whom, and on what basis? It's

> certainly not a scientific curiosity, since ID is scientifically

> bankrupt and enjoys no scientific support.

This is only true if you exclude the ID scientists from the ranks of

" scientists. " It enjoys at least the support of *some* scientists.

> And unlike the arguments

> we might make over nutrition, which sadly are at least partly

> relegated to the fringe, it's not an evidence-based disagreement

> either.

It's a philosophical disagreement over the legitimacy of certain types

of inference.

> But then the actual scientific debate over heart disease,

> nutrition and related issues is actually quite a bit more robust than

> most people would guess from the popular media.

These are more robust than all of the sciences engaging in historical

inference simply because they rely on direct observation much more

historical inference much less.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Here, Gene,

This is an introductory starting point, and it mentions some books

that flesh it out further if you care to look at them.

http://www.discovery.org/a/3059

As you can see from reading it, the theory wasn't a plot by

creationists to insert Christianity into the public schools, but an

accumulation of evidence noticed by specialized scientists based on

correlations to nanotechnology on the DNA they were studying. Too

bad so many people get their information from Wikipedia, which has

that creationist conspiracy theory in the opening paragraph - one of

the worst cases of bias in Wikipedia I've see thus far!

>

> Gene,

>

> >> I think that philosophy of science should have some coverage in

> >> science courses.

>

> > As an excuse to inject some Christian theology, apparently.

>

> No, because it makes no sense to discuss science without discussing

> the scientific method and it makes no sense to discuss the

scientific

> method without discussing some of the philosophy and assumptions

> behind it.

>

> > Nothing really worse than hastily covered, half baked philosophy.

And

> > if you hadn't realized it, I don't think that ID is considered

one of

> > the landmarks of scientific philosophy. Is there a major work?

>

> It is a current controversy, and interesting.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

On Oct 24, 2008, at 7:52 AM, Masterjohn wrote:

> ,

>

> > A controversy maybe, but where, among whom, and on what basis? It's

> > certainly not a scientific curiosity, since ID is scientifically

> > bankrupt and enjoys no scientific support.

>

> This is only true if you exclude the ID scientists from the ranks of

> " scientists. " It enjoys at least the support of *some* scientists.

>

NO - a scientist who believes in God, whether by inference from

intelligent design, or prior to that inference, has not found God by

scientific means. The 'debate' is not a scientific one, it is a

philosophical one at best.

>

>

> > And unlike the arguments

> > we might make over nutrition, which sadly are at least partly

> > relegated to the fringe, it's not an evidence-based disagreement

> > either.

>

> It's a philosophical disagreement over the legitimacy of certain types

> of inference.

>

I think that it's legitimate to make an inference from one's

experience that God exists, however it is NOT legitimate to say that

it is a scientific conclusion, and that this is a controversy of

science.

>

>

> > But then the actual scientific debate over heart disease,

> > nutrition and related issues is actually quite a bit more robust

> than

> > most people would guess from the popular media.

>

> These are more robust than all of the sciences engaging in historical

> inference simply because they rely on direct observation much more

> historical inference much less.

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

sighing loudly - I never said that the theory of intelligent design

(which has been around for a long time) was developed as a plot. What

I do say is that the attempt to insert it in school science

curriculums is a disingenuous attempt to teach religion in schools as

an alternative to science.

> Here, Gene,

>

> This is an introductory starting point, and it mentions some books

> that flesh it out further if you care to look at them.

>

> http://www.discovery.org/a/3059

>

> As you can see from reading it, the theory wasn't a plot by

> creationists to insert Christianity into the public schools, but an

> accumulation of evidence noticed by specialized scientists based on

> correlations to nanotechnology on the DNA they were studying. Too

> bad so many people get their information from Wikipedia, which has

> that creationist conspiracy theory in the opening paragraph - one of

> the worst cases of bias in Wikipedia I've see thus far!

>

>

> >

> > Gene,

> >

> > >> I think that philosophy of science should have some coverage in

> > >> science courses.

> >

> > > As an excuse to inject some Christian theology, apparently.

> >

> > No, because it makes no sense to discuss science without discussing

> > the scientific method and it makes no sense to discuss the

> scientific

> > method without discussing some of the philosophy and assumptions

> > behind it.

> >

> > > Nothing really worse than hastily covered, half baked philosophy.

> And

> > > if you hadn't realized it, I don't think that ID is considered

> one of

> > > the landmarks of scientific philosophy. Is there a major work?

> >

> > It is a current controversy, and interesting.

> >

> > Chris

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gene,

>> > A controversy maybe, but where, among whom, and on what basis? It's

>> > certainly not a scientific curiosity, since ID is scientifically

>> > bankrupt and enjoys no scientific support.

>> This is only true if you exclude the ID scientists from the ranks of

>> " scientists. " It enjoys at least the support of *some* scientists.

> NO - a scientist who believes in God, whether by inference from

> intelligent design, or prior to that inference, has not found God by

> scientific means. The 'debate' is not a scientific one, it is a

> philosophical one at best.

I just assumed, perhaps wrongly, that by " scientific support "

meant the support of scientists, rather than experimental support,

since I had already made it clear that I didn't think it was testable

and that it should be included in science classes in a section on

epistemology.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> I just assumed, perhaps wrongly, that by " scientific support "

> meant the support of scientists, rather than experimental support,

> since I had already made it clear that I didn't think it was testable

> and that it should be included in science classes in a section on

> epistemology.

Uh, yeah, I thought it was obvious that by " scientific support " I

meant " support by science " , not " support by scientists " . If a bunch

of scientists support Obama, does that mean Obama's candidacy has

" scientific support " ?

-

[Guest guest]

> So are you dividing science into " hard " or

> " real " science and " soft "

> science like psychology, economics, etc.?? Because I

> find it all a

> grey area. Because something happens the same way 90% of

> the time,

> does that " prove " it is a fact?

The more complex a system, an open system, the more difficult it is to make

predictions. As the parlance goes, it becomes overdetermined...meaning that

there are too many inputs to the system to always predict the outcomes. Let's

talk more about probabilities, than facts. I would say that so-called soft

science actually deals with more complex systems.

Anyway, I wasn't addressing the above question at all. I was just making the

point that theological arguments and theories, like Intelligent Design, have no

place in science courses. That doesn't mean that Intelligent Design is wrong.

However, it is not science.

[Guest guest]

" Intelligent Design " takes a *belief* grabbed out of thin air, and

tries to twist logic and reality to prove that pre-held belief,

through tortuous routes that only seem to make sense while you're

looking at each separate twist. Look at the big picture of them

altogether, and you can see how far from any scientific-method ID

takes you.

But for people with a strongly-held *religious belief*, no amount of

straight logic will EVER make them let go of that belief long enough

to accept any possibility of that belief being wrong.

Thing is, religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive. My big

hero in this is Dowd -- see

http://thankgodforevolution.com/the-author

Humans have all different kinds of beliefs, and we will NEVER all

agree on them, or especially the finer points of them, and no amount

of Religious War is ever going to change that.

What is so dangerous, so insidious about " Intelligent Design " and the

Wedge Strategy it came out of -- see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

-- is that they are trying to use people's ignorance to return us to a

time when one particular set of religious beliefs was more important

than ANYthing, and Science only functioned to " prove " those religious

beliefs.

This freedom of religion thing we've had in the USA has been working

fairly well. We have to be constantly on guard against the notion that

freedom-of-religion means (to certain people) freedom to impose their

own religious beliefs on everybody.

And the big thing is, people of any and all and no religions can agree

on the same scientific principles, as long as they keep religion and

science separate!

Joy

>

> Renate-

>

> > Science seems to take it all backwards and start out by guessing an

> > answer to something and then trying to prove you're right. Maybe

> > that's the root of some of the problems, in my mind!

>

> Again, this is a fundamental misunderstanding. Science starts by

> looking at phenomena in the natural world, proceeds to formulate

> hypotheses to explain said phenomena, uses those hypotheses to

> generate testable predictions, and then attempts to falsify those

> predictions through experimentation and observation.

>

> How else would you have it proceed, anyway?

>

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > A controversy maybe, but where, among whom, and on what basis? It's

> > certainly not a scientific curiosity, since ID is scientifically

> > bankrupt and enjoys no scientific support.

>

> This is only true if you exclude the ID scientists from the ranks of

> " scientists. " It enjoys at least the support of *some* scientists.

Arggh. I meant to say it's " certainly not a scientific CONTROVERSY " ,

which I figure you probably understood.

At any rate, your assertion depends on the definition of " scientific

support " , which I think I already clarified elsewhere, but it also

touches on credentialism. Which scientists support ID (as constituted

in the POLITICAL controversy of the day) and why should we credit or

care about their support?

> > And unlike the arguments

> > we might make over nutrition, which sadly are at least partly

> > relegated to the fringe, it's not an evidence-based disagreement

> > either.

>

> It's a philosophical disagreement over the legitimacy of certain types

> of inference.

Uh, what's a philosophical disagreement over the legitimacy of certain

types of inference? ID certainly isn't, though some of its supporters

may claim that philosophical disagreement as one of the supporting

pillars of their assertions.

> > But then the actual scientific debate over heart disease,

> > nutrition and related issues is actually quite a bit more robust

> than

> > most people would guess from the popular media.

>

> These are more robust than all of the sciences engaging in historical

> inference simply because they rely on direct observation much more

> historical inference much less.

True enough, but the theory of evolution doesn't rely only on

historical inference.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> Uh, yeah, I thought it was obvious that by " scientific support " I

> meant " support by science " , not " support by scientists " . If a bunch

> of scientists support Obama, does that mean Obama's candidacy has

> " scientific support " ?

I had thought of asking, but I don't see why you would have written

that in response to anything I had said. In any other case, I would

have assumed you meant experimental support by the phrase, but I don't

see why you would make that point when I had said that ID should be

included as a debate about the legitimacy of inferring design in an

epistemology section of a science class, which is philosophical

argumentation rather than empirical demonstration.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

> At any rate, your assertion depends on the definition of " scientific

> support " , which I think I already clarified elsewhere, but it also

> touches on credentialism. Which scientists support ID (as constituted

> in the POLITICAL controversy of the day) and why should we credit or

> care about their support?

Since it is a matter of epistemology and debating the technique of

inference, then it really depends on logical support rather than

empirical/experimental support. Someone has to decide whether it is

worth considering. I think that should be the teacher, if it is

allowed by the administrator, and the parents and children should

collectively decide whether they want to go to that school or attend

that class, and you, Gene, I, Bush, Obama, McCain, and every other

nosy person should stay out of it. If I were teaching a class, I

would use it based on whether I thought the students found it

interesting enough to pique their interest in debating epistemology.

Whatever the students are sufficiently interested in should probably

be the main criteria for what should serve as an epistemological

discussion since many a student would probably find such discussions

overwhelmingly boring, and I think the issue is probably sufficiently

charged and sufficiently personally meaningful to so many people that

it would serve the purpose well.

>> It's a philosophical disagreement over the legitimacy of certain types

>> of inference.

> Uh, what's a philosophical disagreement over the legitimacy of certain

> types of inference? ID certainly isn't, though some of its supporters

> may claim that philosophical disagreement as one of the supporting

> pillars of their assertions.

The disagreement between supporters and opponents of ID is primarily a

disagreement over the legitimacy of inferring design based on

analogies between the characteristics of things known to be designed

and the characteristics of the natural world.

>> > But then the actual scientific debate over heart disease,

>> > nutrition and related issues is actually quite a bit more robust

>> than

>> > most people would guess from the popular media.

>> These are more robust than all of the sciences engaging in historical

>> inference simply because they rely on direct observation much more

>> historical inference much less.

> True enough, but the theory of evolution doesn't rely only on

> historical inference.

Of course not -- it relies on the observations from which those

historical inferences were made. But the theory that all life forms

share common descent, colloquially called " evolution, " is itself

entirely an historical inference.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Maybe some of my own frustrations with the scientific method got

> worked in there as well. I've never had an easy time with Occam's

> Razor or even the whole hypothesis thing - learning occurs when

> someone realizes they don't know something.

Maybe you just didn't have very good science teachers. Learning can

happen all along the line. The way I read it, you started it in the

middle. The whole sequence goes:

notice something ->

investigate till brain is fried

put on back burner (sit in bathtub like Archimedes)

get aha! hypothesis ->

test hypothesis ->

if confirmed, pursue inevitable questions

if not confirmed, go back to 2 and inevitable questions

So, maybe you just like the noticing part and don't care so much

about the rest.

[Guest guest]

Remember, however that this discussion is about cosmology (how the universe

began).

For the most part, you can't " test " cosmological hypotheses. (Actually, I

suppose we did when they tried to generate life in the laboratory.) But, the

rest has to be mathematics, physics and then simply stacking up the evidence

--- the " noticing part " .

Re: No Intelligence Allowed

> Maybe some of my own frustrations with the scientific method got

> worked in there as well. I've never had an easy time with Occam's

> Razor or even the whole hypothesis thing - learning occurs when

> someone realizes they don't know something.

Maybe you just didn't have very good science teachers. Learning can

happen all along the line. The way I read it, you started it in the

middle. The whole sequence goes:

notice something ->

investigate till brain is fried

put on back burner (sit in bathtub like Archimedes)

get aha! hypothesis ->

test hypothesis ->

if confirmed, pursue inevitable questions

if not confirmed, go back to 2 and inevitable questions

So, maybe you just like the noticing part and don't care so much

about the rest.

[Guest guest]

> Remember, however that this discussion is about cosmology (how the

universe began).

>

> For the most part, you can't " test " cosmological hypotheses.

> (Actually, I suppose we did when they tried to generate life in the

> laboratory.) But, the rest has to be mathematics, physics and then

> simply stacking up the evidence --- the " noticing part " .

how interesting - I assumed the " noticing " is the original big

questionsIe, noticing doesn't require math or physics. And then the

challenge becomes, how to investiage, and with what tools, as you say.

Also, noticing can happen while doing math and physics too.