Scientific dating method failures dating erotic online
We would need to have an explanation of the explanation, and an explanation of the explanation of the explanation, and an explanation of the explanation of the explanation of the explanation… And thus, we would never be able to explain Moreover, this is not how science works. In order to explain certain quantum phenomena, scientists have posited the existence of dozens of invisible particles with very particular properties that yield predictable results.These have been some of the for the particles that we have offered as explanations for the quantum phenomena.The reason that the details of the Standard Model of Particle Physics are accepted as good explanations for quantum phenomena is because these explanations are plausible, they are extremely testable, they have strong consistency with background knowledge, they come from a tradition (natural science) with great explanatory success, they are relatively simple, they offer much predictive novelty, and they have strong explanatory scope.It doesn’t that we have no explanation whatsoever for the explanations themselves. Ludwig Boltzmann explained heat by positing tiny, unobserved particles (which we now call atoms).
I vividly recall the moment it dawned on me that, whatever my mother’s answer to my latest why-question, I could simply retort by asking ‘Why?
Or consider atheist philosopher of science Michael Friedman.
Notice that he assumes our explanations may not themselves be explained, but that explanations succeed in increasing our understanding of the world: [Consider] the old argument that science is incapable of explaining anything because the basic phenomena to which others are reduced are themselves neither explained nor understood.
the problem with offering “God did it” as an explanation.
The problem with offering “God did it” as an explanation is that such an explanation has low plausibility, is not testable, has poor consistency with background knowledge, comes from a tradition (supernaturalism) with extreme explanatory failure, lacks simplicity, offers no predictive novelty, and has poor explanatory scope.Even for an infinite intellect, regresses of such explanations must end.