Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY  Believe me, Lloyd, half of what your true science is based on is based on how you have been influenced by our conversing.
People fail to realize the subtle influence each of us has on each other, but limiting influences based on the be-all-end-all of science, limits the imagination that allows for future learning.
If scientific understanding is going change in the next hundred years as it has in the past hundred years, to what extent do you believe is your solid science going to stand the test of time? |
I agree with you the fact that we have both influenced each, and in answer to the last question, it's just as I stated it to Fredrick: "IMO, if you realize the abstract will be made factual, with the completion of scientific knowledge, then you may have a new, and different formula, to work with. The only reason present speculative science contains abstract thought/theory, is its present incompleteness, however; when completed, IMO, of which, I think you are leaving out the possibility, of eliminating all present scientific abstract necessities. This is how I truly see the world. I think it was Noan Chomsky, the major linguist, who stated this very fact, "In the final stages of knowledge acquisition, the facts will eliminate the abstracts."___as he said, in so many words... Yes, we still have a ways to go, but I for one, am fully confident of this evolving scientific truth. So, as to you and I's thinking, we are still on opposite sides of the abstract/factual debate. To me, all fundamental debates must be founded on a methodology, which is the foundation of science; and yet abstraction lacks any such fundamental foundation___It's far too loose an explanation format, to explain any type of reality, except the exaggerated, when considered as an all inclusive explanator of understanding___It fails miserably...i.e., no fundamental methodology, of which science, does possess..."
Herein stands the crux of the matter...
Lloyd