Morris Dovey wrote:

Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:

| Science - even if we had *perfect* science - at best can only
| address
| questions of *how* and only for observations about things that have
| occured since the beginning of the Universe.

Hmm. You might want to think about this some more. "Perfect" science
can only deal with observations about things that have occurred during
the course of the observations. Any conclusions about unobserved
prior, unobserved concurrent, or subsequent events are at most
hypotheses.

You miss my point. Even if a "perfect" Science existed, it
would be (as far was we now know) blind to anything before
the birth of the Universe. Moreover, *all* Science is hypothesis -
some more likely/testable than others. There is ultimately
no "proof" in Science at all.


As soon as a claim is made about an unobserved event, we've left the
realm of perfect science and entered the realm of faith - where it's

Uh, no .... Cosmologists draw inferences all the time about
events that they could not possibly observe - and make claims
about said events. This is consistent with the rules by which
Science operates. It is "faith" only in the sense that *all*
knowledge systems - Scientific or not - operate from some set
of unprovable starting points.

permissible to treat hypothesis as fact. Deductive and inductive logic
are useful tools; but they're simply the bridges between that which
has been observed and that which has not.

--
Morris Dovey
Our 4-D universe may be an isolated singularity in a 0-D non-causitive
nowhere :-)




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/