Re: Copy of: Re: Human explosion (fwd)
Stephen continues:
"His justification is that it is part of the "game" of science. My
question is, since when is it right to teach what is not true, just
because that is the rules of a "game", called "science", that
materilaistic-naturalists have made up?"
People made up the rules. Your modifier is a pejorative. I
have previously cited Whewell's comments on them.
When is it right to teach what is not true? Because it is
a game. And even "untrue" theories can be -- often are --
useful. WHat they predict -- they predict. What they do not
predict -- that becomes the next change to the scientific
paradigm. In the meantime, we all benefit from the
technological fallout!
Atoms are not "little round balls." But that theory was highly
useful for a long time.
Elements are stable & do not change. Again, false. Not true. But
that theory was also highly useful in separating "alchemy" from
real chemistry!
Planets attract one another gravitationally. Nope. We know
(thanks to Einstein) better now. But what fantastic advances were made
under the original theory!
The list goes on...
Burgy