![]() |
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#241
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#242
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#243
|
||||
|
Quote:
You're learning. You're learning.
__________________
Gnawlunzs Phrogphry
Master Angler, Baker, Cadger, Drunk "If you can't eat a frog, then eat two." | |||
|
|
||||
|
#245
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#246
|
|||
|
while this has been a fun exercise it's really a bit mundane for me at this point.
Origin of Life science isn't there yet. but it's a lot better than mumbo-jumbo about some mystical being...because if everyone accepted that as fact there'd be no new development simply because no one would question the "why". argue on, bros
__________________
Klaatu (RED)- Fastest Rez Click in Norrath
Klaatu (BLUE) - Eternal 51 Mage Klattu (GREEN) - Baby Cleric | ||
|
|
|||
|
#247
|
|||
|
Very true, but as cosmologist Lawrence Krauss often points out, "why" generally implies a purpose where there probably isn't one. When intellectually honest people ask "why" something is, or "why" something isn't, Krauss asserts that what they're really asking is "how". I tend to agree with him.
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#248
|
||||
|
Quote:
The assertion Krauss makes actually brings the scientific process to a halt. If you are left merely explaining how things work without allowing the question of why they work, then that takes an essential element of discovery out of the equation and makes science more of a perfunctory exercise than anything. Every major discovery man has made ever made through science has started with the question of why something happens. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#249
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
| ||||
|
|
|||||
|
#250
|
|||
|
btw, why don't you claim the million dollar prize for psychic/supernatural phenomena? Surely being able to guess birthdays with 90% accuracy would be considered worthy. Or are the kind of superhero who would never use your powers for personal financial gain?
| ||
|
|
|||
![]() |
|
|