"Surfer" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 2 May 2008 13:10:30 +0200, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Surfer" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 02 May 2008 02:10:19 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote:


"Smooth John" wrote in message
...
Science today gives no answers,

Science never has claimed to answer anything. It is simply a process of
test, hypothesize, test, hypothesise over and over. If what comes out of
that process is 'answers' is a philosophical issue of zero scientific value.

Every test of a hypothesis produces an answer. I think what the
original poster is probably complaining about is inability to find a
comprehensible framework (or set of interpretations) within which to
comprehend the myriad answers that have been produced.

However for a framework to be comprehensible and satisfying to an
individual it must match the cognitive abilities of that individual.

To make sense of science I think different people will need different
frameworks. Ideally the different frameworks should be compatible with
each other otherwise in view of the fact that there is only one
physical reality, one or more of the frameworks would be out of sync
with reality.

I think providing such frameworks is the role of philosophy. Perhaps
the OP needs to look for authors who combine philosophy and science in
a way that he finds suitable for himself.

Perhaps the OP needs to look for authors who combine fraud
and pseudo-science in a way that Cahill finds suitable for the OP.
A good place to start would be
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cp...ssphysics.html
right?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:

You can safely call it an "ad excrementum argument".

Dirk Vdm