Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8276000" data-attributes="member: 16814">Things that work tend to be true in the way they need to be, unless you're arguing that it could change tomorrow.You seem to, oddly, be putting forth that claim that since I cannot prove that the Sun will not rise tomorrow for reasons we cannot comprehend that it therefore means the Universe is incomprehensible.  You've subbed in a requirement to prove a negative in order to defend the argument that you cannot prove the Universe is comprehensible.  Rather, logically and scientifically, it would be better formulated to say that you need have only one instance of something truly incompressible to show the theory the Universe is comprehensible is incorrect.  The inverse, that I can't say the Sun will rise tomorrow until it does, is a flawed argument requiring a negative proof.I get what you're saying, it's the fundamental point of the scientific method - you always look for evidence that your current understanding is incorrect, you never assume you're correct and stop looking.  However, the scientific method is not fully independent -- it is a philosophical argument not a objective truth.  And, as such, it is rooted in axiomatic statements.  The scientific method is rooted in the axiom that the universe can be understood, and that iterative observation, hypothesis, and testing is the way to understand it.  If you knock out that axiomatic underpinning, and say that the universe is incomprehensible (which, by the way, is as much as statement of faith as that it is comprehensible, so you're guilty of the same in asserting so) then you've removed the axiomatic underpinning of the scientific method and rendered it false.To say that we may never fully understand the universe is an acknowledgment of the shortcomings of mankind, it's not a statement on the nature of the universe.  We may not understand it, like a goldfish may not understand literature.  But, we do understand literature, so it is comprehensible, if not to goldfish.  This is a shortcoming of goldfish, not of literature.</blockquote>

Verification