You wrote:
>In science a concept is considered to be valid when the evidence
demonstrates
>that validity. It goes back to my "What would the universe look like if
this
>concept were true" question. If a concept under investigation were to
>predict that the sky is blue, the fact that the sky is blue is good evidence
>validating that concept. However, if the concept were to predict that the
>sky is pink and teal green poka dots, the fact that it is not is good
>evidence that that concept is invalid.
>So if a philosophical concept predicts that the universe should look one
way,
>and we discover that the universe really does look that way, we can consider
>the concept validated, and even those who oppose the concept should agree.
>Is the concept proven? No, because new evidence may appear later that shows
>that the appearance that we thought validated the concept was simply an
>illusion, or we discover that the concept makes a further prediction that is
>not validated by the universe. Until that happens, however, dislike of a
>concept is not sufficient evidence to doubt its validity.
Hi Kevin,
Concerning the color of the sky, we have a definition to which we all can
agree--including color-blind people. A certain wave length on the light
spectrum. That is science, and I agree it can be validated. I disagree the
same validation can occur about theories such as "what might the universe
look like if this were true?", or concerning events which occurred in the
past, "how might this have happened?". Until you can provide a measurement
and definitions upon which all can agree, such speculations will remain
speculations, regardless of how much their advocates like the theories, or
how many people believe the evidence supports them.
Kevin L. O'Brien