hammegk said:
In a sense that is correct. About 110yrs ago, 2 tiny clouds existed: Michaelson-Morley & blackbody radiation. Today we have: *snip*
True, but irrelevent. This is still falling back on the assertion that be basis of science is shaky because there are some as yet unanswered questions
Also, the origin of mass – and conversely, energy – continues unanswerable.
Unanswerable or unanswered? (And I'm not sure it's either.) What is your rationel for this statement? If it were, indeed, unanswerable I'd say you might have an arguement, but I'm not aware of anything that says the origin of math is
unanswerable.
And as mentioned the dark matter/energy preponderance having as yet no analysis, and for that matter, perhaps always indetectable.
Except, as mentioned, the technology has begun to emerge that will allow us to begin analyzing the phenomenon. How do you justify the absolute that it will be "always indetectable"? Do you have some knowledge about the matter (pardon the pun) or is it wishful thinking?
It would be easy if things either were, or were-not.
It would be easy if life was binary, but who ever told you life was supposed to be easy? Understanding takes elbow grease, metaphorically speaking.
I do have one 100% certain point: “*I* think”.
And you're 100% certain of that, are you?
Even that is such a complex subject unto itself. Have you thought it all the way through? Consider, in order to come to the conclusion that "I think" with 100% certainty, one must first be 100% certain what the terms "I" and "think" mean. There is a common understanding what "I" means, but that must be a generalized (i.e. approximate) understanding rather than a specific (i.e. exact) understanding.
Do you know who "I" (i.e. hammegk) is with 100% certainty? Are you intimately familar with all aspects of your Id, Ego, and Superego? Your consciousness and subconsciousness? Are 100% aware of your physical and mental abilities and limitations. Do you know all aspects of your background that make you who you are? Are you 100% certain you are who you think you are?
Do you know what it means to "think" with 100% certainty? Do you understand all aspects that are involved in the process of "thinking" so that there is no ambiguity whatsoever? Can you descriminate between thinking and random electrochemical processess? Can you tell, with 100% certainty, that you are thinking rather than being under the illusion that you are thinking?
How can you even be sure that you understand what it means for "I" (i.e. hammegk) to "think" with 100% certainty?
(hint: this is where you get to be a real skeptic and question your own beliefs and try to justify them with more than idle speculation or wishful thinking.)
Nothing else meets this standard of reliability, although I’m more than happy to state that math-physics models accurately predict (aggregate) futures, and at 99.999+%.
I'm willing to bet not even "I think" meets that standard of reliability. It's an abstract and relative concept based in the ego and, as such, means different things to different people. Math-physics models, while in themselves abstract, are based on concreate, objective, and repeatable phenomenon. That is why they can be 99.9+% accurate.
Your problem is this: you are willing to be skeptical of everything except the absolute reliability of models based on scientific methods, and in essence use axioms to "prove" themselves.
First, this doen't address the issue of your Fallacy of Irrelevent Conclusion (which you quoted for this bit) and, actually, it implies that you are really trying to address your Fallacy of False Dilemma in that by my not seeing this as an either-or situation I am not acknowledging the the possibility that science itself may have a false basis. Which leads me to my second point, the fact that you've made a false dilemma in no way implies that I am not willing to acknowledge the possibility. (Remember, you've allowed me to interpret your statements. I have not allowed you to interpret mine.) In fact, at the end of my post, I went so far as to outline how one
would go about showing that the basis of science is weak or even erroneous. Your claim that I'm unwilling to be skeptical of science is plainly false, as shown.
It’s there as that also currently impenetrable mystery “energy”.
Given that I must extrapolate your meanings, you are saying "The remaining 3% of the universe is made of dark energy", even though earlier you said that "the universe is 96% dark matter/energy". Which would imply that you believe that 99% of the universe is made of dark matter/energy, despite the best estimates by scientist.
If, on the other hand, you really meant to say that "The remaining 3% of the universe is made of energy (the regular thuroughly studied kind)" then I have no idea what you mean by the adjectives "currently impenetrable mystery" because it surely is not.
As an aside, I find it amusing that you chastize science on the one hand but then use it as proof when you think it is to your advantage.
Umm, no I don’t agree that is part of my contention.
Well that's the problem of not saying explicitely what you mean, isn't it. However, if it isn't part of you contention then you must have been exadurating when you said that "what science calls "matter" comprises less than 1%, how firm is the basis for scientific belief systems?" where you implied that science only had knowledge of less than 1% of the universe, what exactly did you mean?
I’m not as concerned with “the universe” as I am with the under-our-noses problems of quark binding, and “mass”.
And you consider this to be a systemic problem rather than specific problems? What leads you to this conclusion? The mere existance of yet unanswered questions? Can you elaborate on your reasons for this conclusion?
I think we are at heart discussing how much “self-correction” is on the horizon, and why a science with such skaky underlying understanding states that materialism is the ONLY possible answer to "what-is".
Perhaps there is a lot of change on the horizen. It certainly happened a lot in the previous century and there is no reason it couldn't happen in the current one. However, I would assert that the shakey understanding is not happening on the behalf of science but rather by those who do not understand science and its conclusions. And, just so we're being unambiguous, yes, I am referring directly to you, hammegk. Specifically, I refer to your lack of understanding of the partical-wave duality of subatomic particles, for example, which has been independently varified time after time.
Comparatively, how often has it been independently varified that "I [hammegk] think"?
edited to fix tag problem
