RE: Natural Order and Science
February 26, 2016 at 5:39 am
(This post was last modified: February 26, 2016 at 5:40 am by I_am_not_mafia.)
It's not just philosophy either, this need to be relevant to the real world can apply to whole scientific fields as well. When the field of Artificial Life began, there were some doubts as to whether it was actually any use. What was the point of coming up with models about 'life as it could be'? Ultimately a model needs to be applied back to the real world, it needs to tell us something about it. I may come up with an excellent model of how life could have started, or how artificial birds flock together, but I then still have to see if it matches real world observations. If it does then great, if not then why not? Or can I use my model in a practical way? Until that last step is made, the work is irrelevant.
So if you are going to try to come up with ways that the universe was created by a god and are happy with your conclusions, you still need to test it and provide evidence. You can use logic without evidence to show that a hypothesis is logically inconsistent and can be discarded, but you cannot use logic without evidence to prove that a hypothesis is correct.
So if you are going to try to come up with ways that the universe was created by a god and are happy with your conclusions, you still need to test it and provide evidence. You can use logic without evidence to show that a hypothesis is logically inconsistent and can be discarded, but you cannot use logic without evidence to prove that a hypothesis is correct.