Changes

::: I agree with you for the most part ... with one caveat:  Your use of the phrase "scientific conjecture."  You say science must stay within the constraint of the "natural universe."  But I think there's another constraint on science we must take into account -- experiment:)!  IMO, the "scientific conjecture" you mention above is an oxymoron.  There is science, and there is conjecture, but there's no such thing as a scientific conjecture.  A conjecture becomes science when we find a way to test the conjecture, and it passes the test -- and then it's not conjecture anymore -- it's [[falsifiable]] science.  Before you can test a proposition, though, it remains only conjecture.  Perhaps what you mean is ''materialistic'' conjecture ... meaning conjectures based solely on materialistic causes?

::: I agree with you for the most part ... with one caveat:  Your use of the phrase "scientific conjecture."  You say science must stay within the constraint of the "natural universe."  But I think there's another constraint on science we must take into account -- experiment:)!  IMO, the "scientific conjecture" you mention above is an oxymoron.  There is science, and there is conjecture, but there's no such thing as a scientific conjecture.  A conjecture becomes science when we find a way to test the conjecture, and it passes the test -- and then it's not conjecture anymore -- it's [[falsifiable]] science.  Before you can test a proposition, though, it remains only conjecture.  Perhaps what you mean is ''materialistic'' conjecture ... meaning conjectures based solely on materialistic causes?

::: I say all this because I think it's important to recognize when "scientists" are out of the realm of science and in the realm of conjecture and philosophy ... where the credibility of "science" doesn't apply, because the rigors of experiment cannot be used and one guess is just as "unscientific" as the next one ... and anytime a scientist (or anyone else for that matter) tells you something he can't experimentally test, he's not acting like a scientist ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 12:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::: I say all this because I think it's important to recognize when "scientists" are out of the realm of science and in the realm of conjecture and philosophy ... where the credibility of "science" doesn't apply, because the rigors of experiment cannot be used and one guess is just as "unscientific" as the next one ... and anytime a scientist (or anyone else for that matter) tells you something he can't experimentally test, he's not acting like a scientist ... [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 12:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)