Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:
Kantor said:
SciFiBoy said:
1) how can they not be biological though? surely the why would be biological also?
2) I know that, but dont we have theories for thoose things? which are themselves based on evidence?
|
1) That's where we go into unchartered territory. Because we genuinely have no idea. All we can do is speculate.
2) Yes, we have theories based on evidence. Those theories could be completely wrong, especially those that involve the greater universe. How do we know that gravity and electromagnetism don't work differently, 30 billion light years from here? And I would think that those theories are almost certainly correct. They are based on solid evidence, and have no real contradictions. My point is that you can't dismiss something as "unscientific" when modern science knows very little about the matter. Human psychology and the make-up of the brain is an area which science has only really scratched the surface of.
|
sure, but isnt that a good thing? that science is evolving and can adapt and question itself? I mean, it makes alot more sense to base a theory on evidence, even loosely than to base it on nothing?
|
It's both good and bad. Good because yes, science is evolving. Bad because we'll never know one billionth of the rules that govern the universe.
There's no concrete evidence to suggest that this particular theory is correct or incorrect, and there are arguments on both sides, so I would say either way it's plausible.
I'm not doubting gravity and electromagnetism, they are almost certainly correct. But nothing is ever certain in science.
|
thats my point really, until we have evidence, whats better than a scientific theory?
surely superstition is contrary to the aims of science, it doesnt look for answers, it just makes them up based on...well, nothing really.
