(October 10, 2021 at 11:45 am)no one Wrote: Perhaps there is a misunderstanding, there is a "science" to how things work.
Take for example, the internal combustion engine, whether or not some simple-minded blockhead understands the science behind it, has no effect on how the engine works.
I consider that a misuse of the term. There is a precise mechanism by which an internal combustion engine works. One can use science to describe the chemical and mechanical behaviors happening and of course it was scientific work that led to the development of said engine. The difference is subtle but important.
The reason there's a difference. Consider the Copernican model of the solar system and the Galileo version. Both are correct from an observational standpoint. You can use either to somewhat accurately predict the positions of the planets, yet one has a flawed basis if you are considering the objective reality of how the solar system is arranged.
Why is it so?
~Julius Sumner Miller
~Julius Sumner Miller