But the characterisation of the scientific method by Hawkins is wrong.
It would be like saying that when I interview two people about their beliefs about envy I would start by telling them my beliefs about envy.
This would not be (obviously) scientific and I would expect methodological critisism: but I would not do that.
It's the same with Hawkins.
He is miss characterising the scientific method. How can you have a debate if one debater does not come prepared with accurate points?
You are getting sloppy here, tired latley?
You're miss-characterising your opponent, again.
God, man: change the record.
Edited by Larni, : Formatting
Edited by Larni, : Spellink
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.