Sythe, although the points you make are valid, you are acting as if we as humans have definite answers to extremely complex questions. The universe is such a vast and complex entity, and we must accept that many of these laws and theories which apply on Earth could very well be untrue in other areas. We have already come across major obstacles in our theories of the universe. We have decided that the universe is made up of Dark Matter and Dark Energy to explain gravitational anomalies. We claim they make up 95% of the mass in the universe, yet we have never directly proved their existence.
Well I don't agree with Dark Matter or Dark Energy. I think they are easily as bunk as the rest of the arguments made by mainstream astronomers. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is a metaphysical impossibility.
The case is quite the converse of what you suggest. YOU are acting as though we
know all these things about the universe. I am saying we know only those things which we can deduce -- not guess -- from real knowledge, as induction is out of the question at the current point in time.
Science has been known to make mistakes. Just look at atomic theory 100 years ago, or even old theories of the universe. To act as if we know exactly how things work, and to rule out theories which cannot be disproved is very foolish.
Not at all. Physics rests on metaphysics. When you go out to study the universe you are assuming a set of rules about the nature of existents (things which exist). To then suggest that you are going to study and posit things which are not existents (or which necessarily cannot be existents) is to be in contradiction with one's self. Contradictions have no relation to reality. We work in a rational and consistent form with premises based on observation for one reason: the primacy of existence. Reality dictates to you, not visa versa. This is why we have the scientific method.
One would be wholly pointless and in contradiction in attempting to apply the scientific method to an unscientific (and irrational) hypothesis.
Further, your argument is once more entirely the converse. Not for a second do I believe our current model of the atom is correct. But you seem to put your thumbs in your belt and tell me that "they were wrong then, but they're right now" this is in basic contradiction with your own argument.
We must realize that we as humans are likely very limited in our comprehension of what is taking place in the universe. Just as a colony of ants is very limited in their understanding of the world. We base our knowledge on indirect observations, and in many cases assumptions.
This means nothing. It does not invalidate deductive reasoning. All I am showing you are contradictions in hypotheses. These hypotheses necessarily cannot be consistent with reality because they contain contradictions. To attempt to pursue them further would be entirely foolish. In studying the universe you've already assumed that it is rational and consistent and that it obeys many fundamental rules such as the law of identity.
Now, as you stated earlier, maybe these rules of reality could bend or change somewhere else. The somewhere part would be difficult for you because that implies distance which is part of the rules of reality. But ignoring that, even if they did change 'somewhere' or somehow in the universe we have no reason to believe they will, and no evidence to suggest how they will. So to assert that all hypotheses are equally valid with respect to the universe because of the possibility that the laws of reality may change somewhere is to give a blank cheque to unscientific minds.
Indeed, it is an irrational doubt (that the laws of the universe change), because it has no basis in reality, having no evidence to date, and as such it may be disregarded.
Until we can prove that the universe is indeed limited through direct evidence, and furthermore, prove that it is not a part of a greater entity, then we cannot rule it out. The humans of the 21st century are very far from having everything figured out.
Again you are dismissing deduction and saying induction is the only true way to gain knowledge, completely oblivious to the fact that deduction was learned THROUGH induction.
For those who don't have the foggiest on what I am saying here. Deduction is a way of gaining knowledge through 'deductive logic'. Induction is a way of gaining more direct knowledge through 'inductive logic'.
