Quote:
Originally Posted by Zephir
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
So AWT is not, by many standard definitions, part of science?
|
I dunno - you can tell me...  Is the Aether concept a part of science by standard definition? By my opinion, this question is completely irrelevant |
If that is so, then why are you posting here?
I'm sure you must have read the BAUT Rules, and learned that BAUT is an avowedly science-based forum (except, of course, for the parts that are not, such as OTBB).
Quote:
|
- the only relevant question is, if some concept is realistic description of the reality. If not, it doesn't belong into science automatically. If yes, how it can be considered to stay outside of science? Isn't science dedicated to realistic description of reality?
|
Indeed.
If by "
realistic description" you mean to include attributes such as objectivity and verifiability then that may be so; if not, then not.
Back to my question: if, as it seems to me so far, AWT cannot be put into a quantitative form, even in principle, then in what sense could it be said to be a "
realistic description of the reality" (in principle, where objectivity and verifiability are assumed incorporated in "realistic description")?