Posted 13 November 2009 - 01:56 PM
Mattshark, on 13 November 2009 - 11:25 AM, said:
No science is a method of study and it is real and produces real results. Observe - Hypothesise - Experiment. It is not reality ,however, but that is a different matter altogether.
That's what i'm saying. A model of reality.
Stephen Hawking wrote in "The universe in a nutshell":
...Every valid scientific theory, whether it refers to "time" or any other term, should, in my opinion, be based in the most accurate philosophy of science: Logical Positivism, which was introduced by Karl Popper and others. According to this way of thinking, a scientific theory consists of a mathematical model that describes and decodes the observations that we make. A "good" theory will be able to describe a vast array of of phenomena with the use of a few simple proposals and also verify that it's predictions can be measured. If the predictions are confirmed by the observational data, then the theory passes the stage of hypothesis, although it can never be prooved to be completely accurate. On the other hand, whereas the theory fails to predict the observational data, then the theory should be disqualified or altered. (At least that's what is supposed to happen. In reality, the accuracy of observations is usually debated as well as the credibility of those who propose it.) If someone follows Logical Positivism, as i do, then he cannot say what Time really is. He can only describe that which consists a very good mathematical model of time and pinpoint the predictions of this specific model.
Edited by innerverse, 13 November 2009 - 01:59 PM.
Gradually, we are told, step by step, men produced the arts and crafts, this and that, until they emerged into the light of history. Those soporific words "gradually" and "step by step" repeated incessantly, are aimed at covering an ignorance which is both vast and surprising.
-Ugo de Santillana and Ertha Von Dechend, Hamlet's Mill, 1983