Quote:


HT You say we should view the universe as it is? How does one do that
when there is no real consensus about what the universe is, how it was
created/big bang or what? If all the scientists in the world can't agree
or don't know then I don't think it is currently possible.




There is a GREAT deal of scientific consensus about a LOT of things in the
natural world. If there were not, how could you be taking advantage of a
system which faithfully transmits your thoughts across miles and miles so
that everyone else who has access to this forum can read them? (Plus a
thousand other examples I can cite.) Science and its technological fruits
are based on things which can be replicated over and over again, and they
don't require anyone's beliefs at all ... they simply work whether you
believe it or not. Now, THAT's something I can appreciate.

Sure, I've said over and over again in this forum that while we know a
lot, we don't know much more. Hence the room for scientific debate,
counter-arguments, counter-experiments ... all of this is part of the
daily routine of science. We rigorously think and conduct experiments
regarding an issue, shaking it every which way, until all that remains is
something which can withstand scrutiny from every inquiry. The lack of
agreement at the forefront in science merely means we haven't finished
shaking these topics sufficiently yet. Cosmological issues are currently
hotly debated only because it's so difficult to gather the necessary data and
to interpret them properly. It is one of the frontier-topics in science.
But at least there is a tacit agreement that the argument
must be based on rational thinking and objective evidence. That's much
more than what the average mystic would permit.

And scientists never say, ok, what we have found is truth and this is
exactly the way things are. Rather, we say, ok, this is what is currently most
consistent with our best theory, and look, it explains all the objective
tests we have performed quite well, and it is able to make verifiable
predictions with convincing accuracy and precision. Moreover, we can use
what we learned to create/fix things which benefit (and often
revolutionize) society.

In the future, some new evidence may require a re-thinking of old theories
... science is always a work in progress. But the new theories which are
bound to arise do not invalidate the old ones ... they merely supersede
them in a larger context. For example, while Einstein's General
Relativity is a more complete theory of gravity than Newton's Classical
Theory, no terrestrial engineer in his right mind would use GR to perform
his routine calculations ... they are unnecessarily complex for the
day-to-day purposes at hand, even though they are technically more accurate.
Rather, Newton's approximation is plenty accurate, even for routine travel to
the Moon. Likewise, maybe some future theorist will figure out an even more
comprehensive theory than GR (which makes it compatible with
Quantum Mechanics, for example), but again, such a theory would not
invalidate GR or QM ... it would simply provide a broader context
wherein these theories can be appreciated from a broader perspective.

Speaking of Quantum Mechanics ... most new-age gurus have bent some of its
tenants waaay out of proportion to fit their Eastern mystic views.
Whenever I see some mystic referring to QM, I notice the hypocrisy ... on
the one hand, he uses (his mangling of) science to advance his agenda, but
then in the next breath he warns his followers to beware the
closed-minded scientist. Oi vey!