Yep, I see where you going. Your point is correct, what I'm saying and I'm pretty sure what Lugia is saying is thats fine but don't call it science. It's called philosophy, or theology. Science is something else.
True enough, a lot of science remains theoretical as a lot of the current ideas can not be proved through experiments. A good example of this is string theory, for which there will probably never be an experiment that can prove if it's true, for the same reasons you give for alternative research as the variables involved cannot be physically measured. This is also true of some of the theoretical particles such as Tachyons, and Gravitons. The thing is science does say these are THEORIES, not fact. Also, although there are no experiments that can prove these things there are mathematically proofs that show that, for want of a better explanation, these theories work. Still, doenst mean they are correct, mathematics is itself fundamentally philosophy, albeit an extremely quantitive form of philosophy. Well, so, thats what makes it science you see. There is a logical, mathematically described route behind the theory. It still remains, as far as science is concerned, a theory. There are plenty of physicists who don't believe string theory, and a fair few who also have no time for Tachyons, though most except Gravitons exist.
Philosophy, is arguably, the root of science and mathematics however. Staying purely in philopsohy, or theology, is perfectly acceptable, and in the case of a lot of ideas this is where they will remain. Speaking for myself, a lot of my own theories fall into the remit of post structuralist philosophy. However, my math, as it relates to information theory, and the complex system modelling solutions I've constructed in the past back up (as far as I'm concerned) my philosopy and my theology. I wouldn't however say I have a scientific proof for my philosophy of how the universe and shit works, cos I have no scientifically acceptable method of linking my theophilosophy to my abstraction model (and, never will have either). All I have is similar axioms in both, in one they are proveable (my abstraction model for modelling complex systems), and in the other they aren't (my theophilosophy and mysticy wibbly stuff). It comforts me that I think I've found a link, but I would never by any stretch of the imagination say I have a scientific proof, because I don't. What I have works, but only in a philosophical sense (arguably just logic bombing to fuck within the confines of a territorialised sophistry). Not science. Not science. Just a nifty piece of linguistic gymnastic, and a bit of maths that solves one problem, that can never be directly argued to scientifically relate to the other.
Unfortunately, these fruitloops who are quoted by lynda in 'The field', and also the likes of Graham Hancock, and many others, seem happy to make the leap and say they have the proof. Or that they have something concrete, when in fact, their experiments are wacky or their conclusions from their observations are naieve.
|
