12-29-2005, 03:01 AM
GenericKen,Dec 28 2005, 06:11 PM Wrote:My second point was a response to a second thread by pete. I'm sorry for the lack of clarity, I'll post the quote here:
Creative fiction is not neccessarily consistant with the world, but all good fiction is internally consistant, in that it sets rules and follows them.
I am not asserting that fiction is science, but that some of the more theorhetical science nowadays is fiction. Internal consistancy is not a complete defense for a theory claiming to be scientific, and lambsting another belief that you have no knowledge of does not change that.
[right][snapback]98198[/snapback][/right]
No. Nothing that can be called science works on those principles. The internal consistency of fiction has no bearing whatsoever on the outside world. It is not, in a word, testable.
Scientific "theories" that cannot be tested *at all* are not theories. They are philosophical musings, or some such. Even M-theory, poorly understood though it is, exists for the purpose of making *testable* predictions from a description of the universe. Without that, it would just be a thought experiment. Internal consistency is merely the prerequisite for being taken seriously, and for making sensible predictions.
I have no idea what theory you're talking about in your last sentence. Intelligent Design? Also, I can only presume you're talking about Pete doing the lambasting, in which case I'd be wary about declaring his lack of knowledge. He's not the subject of elaborate conspiracy theories for nothing.
-Jester