|
|
|
|
#1
12-05-2005, 02:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
I'm pleased to see support for my earlier insistance that panspermia is a scientific theory (in contrast to ID) in the fact that a summary of the status of this theory is in the current edition of "Scientific American".
To quote: "As we have show, panspermia is plausible theoretically. But, in addition, important aspects of the hypothesishave made the transition from plausibility to quantitative science". 
|
|
#4
12-06-2005, 03:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
still only a hypothesis at this point, and a tricky one to prove anyway. pretty good wikipedia article on it
|
|
#5
12-06-2005, 05:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
[ QUOTE ]
still only a hypothesis at this point, and a tricky one to prove anyway. pretty good wikipedia article on it [/ QUOTE ] I agree. I was only saying it is a scientific hypothesis as opposed to a non-scientific hypothesis.
|
|
#6
12-06-2005, 07:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pleased to see support for my earlier insistance that panspermia is a scientific theory (in contrast to ID) in the fact that a summary of the status of this theory is in the current edition of "Scientific American". [/ QUOTE ] Ha, knew it. I've come to the conclusion that any explanation for anything, so long as God isn't involved, can be made scientific, even FSM.
|
|
#7
12-06-2005, 05:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm pleased to see support for my earlier insistance that panspermia is a scientific theory (in contrast to ID) in the fact that a summary of the status of this theory is in the current edition of "Scientific American". [/ QUOTE ] Ha, knew it. I've come to the conclusion that any explanation for anything, so long as God isn't involved, can be made scientific, even FSM. [/ QUOTE ] Explanations for God can be considered scientific; Christian Science, ID, etc. It's all in the eyes of the beholder.
|
|
#8
12-06-2005, 10:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
[ QUOTE ]
Explanations for God can be considered scientific; Christian Science, ID, etc. It's all in the eyes of the beholder. [/ QUOTE ] I think the attempt to monopolize the definition of science is a very poor substitute for thought. Characterize something as unscientific and it sounds like you're really saying something. Far better is to consider the theory or hypothesis and then apply logic, observation, etc. I'm not that big a fan of ID as it's usually stated. You can accept it and still be as far from a Christian as any atheist. But I argue from the ID standpoint at times to illustrate the weaknesses of some ideas that are considered more "scientific". What really counts is truth and limiting the discussion with artificial labels just truncates a realistic consideration of truth claims. "Scientific" truth is not more true than any other kind of truth.
|
|
#9
12-07-2005, 04:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
[ QUOTE ]
I think the attempt to monopolize the definition of science is a very poor substitute for thought. [/ QUOTE ] NR may have a point. In a pseudo-democracy or better, we should have a committee of longshoreman and shrimpboat owners vote on what 'science' is, rather than leave it in the hands of scientists. I mean, look at where that has gotten us.
|
|
#10
12-07-2005, 04:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is panspermia a scienctific theory?
[ QUOTE ]
"Scientific" truth is not more true than any other kind of truth. [/ QUOTE ] Or even, "why can't my baseball score count during the basketball playoffs. Baseball is just as much a sport as basketball?" Could it be that scientists are there to invesntigate scientific truths and regardless of the existence or non-existence of other truths or even which is the 'better' truth, ya just don't want spiked shoes on the hardwood.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
