/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14555190
>And the issue is both Langen and Krauss have presumed to "touch bottom," when all their indeed doing is working with whatever phenomonal bit of info they can find.

Well, that's the part I take issue with. Again, the best evidence we have is in favor of Krauss. Langan did not provide evidence on that order nor that quality. So while you could say "Well it wasn't an absolutely certain proof", I'd point of Krauss as a scientist in the first place is never engaging on that level and people demanding that occur are trying to play a shell game. Nothing happens on that level. We don't have access to proofs "in reality", we just have induction.

I think the sort of problem we're having here remains the same one Krauss had being understood by those people. I'm saying all the evidence of the bedrock is currently in favor of Krauss, and that is the most and ONLY meaningful statement one can make regarding what "is" from the standpoint of epistemology. Also, there is currently no other sensible standpoint.

That is, they're demonstrably not in the same category, qualitatively.