Robert J. Kolker Posted October 21, 2007 Report Share Posted October 21, 2007 August DeMorgan reports this conversation between Napoleon and La Place, in his book -A Budget of Paradoxes-. Napoleon: How is it that you say so much about the Universe you say nothing about its Creator? La Place : No Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis. Napoleon: Ah, but it is such a good hypothesis. It explains so many things. La Place : Indeed Sire. M. Lagrange has, with his usual sagacity, has put his finger on the precise difficulty with this hypothesis. It explains everything and it predicts nothing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And that identifies the main purpose of science, to predict what we do not already know and do it correctly (verified empirically). A scientific theory must not only offer explanations but it must make testable predictions. Goddidit is not an acceptable explanation for anything. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenure Posted October 21, 2007 Report Share Posted October 21, 2007 But it predicts that God's love has been shown once in the creation of life, and that it will be shown again in the protection of life. Because Jesus loves you. But I wouldn't expect a heretic like you to understand that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeJoyous Posted October 29, 2007 Report Share Posted October 29, 2007 Hi:) I like to think of the miracle of flowers growing one moment and of babies living and the blue skies above. Yea, verily, also the miracle of the opening of the Red Sea and the arising of Jesus from the Dead. I wonder, though, which set of events is the miracle? The commonplace of nature or that which differs from nature? O la, let the theologian explain this to me. Which set of miracles does he choose as the True Miracles? Then and only then will I know the True Place of science in God's Eternal Universe:) best to all, Mike August DeMorgan reports this conversation between Napoleon and La Place, in his book -A Budget of Paradoxes-. Napoleon: How is it that you say so much about the Universe you say nothing about its Creator? La Place : No Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis. Napoleon: Ah, but it is such a good hypothesis. It explains so many things. La Place : Indeed Sire. M. Lagrange has, with his usual sagacity, has put his finger on the precise difficulty with this hypothesis. It explains everything and it predicts nothing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And that identifies the main purpose of science, to predict what we do not already know and do it correctly (verified empirically). A scientific theory must not only offer explanations but it must make testable predictions. Goddidit is not an acceptable explanation for anything. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 As a note, both LaPlace and Lagrange were very great mathematicians. They both advanced mathematics heavily in many areas, and in particular in the study of calculus with many variables, where some of the advanced techniques bear their names. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.