Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
No, I said we either need to invent new tools or improve on what we've got. Science as it stand (or to be more accurate, the scientific method) cannot answer all the questions it's posed, or even those it's tried to answer, because the tools it uses aren't up to scratch.
|
Why is the method the problem ?
The 'tools' we've developed, (presumably), are GR/SR and QM .. Strings, Ms, etc. So there maybe some tools we are yet to develop .. I can see that ..
… but why would the process need over-hauling ? I'm not sure that its 'the scientific method' which attempts to answer anything .. humans attempt answers .. the
process, (ie: method), is there to establish repeatability and provide predictions .. not answers.
( .. but Carl seems to have said that it does attempt answers ..??).
Cheers