In article , Wally
wrote:

Donal wrote:

You seem to be suggesting that we know so little about our
environment that we shouldn't even bother to seek answers.

Let me quote you.
"Ultimately, the data that we have, compared with the data that we
think is still out there, is laughably small - it's statistically
insignificant. "

This has nothing to do with whether or not we should try to get more data -
it's a statement about our *present* dataset.


Then you say :-
"To sit here on our silly little speck of dust for a whole second,
and then try to state categorically - to draw an "inescapable
conclusion" with regard to - how the universe came to exist is
stupefyingly pointless"

Again, this has nothing to do with whether or not we should try to get more
data.


If we all agreed with with your reasoning, then we would be still
stuck in the dark ages. We would not engage in any scientific
research because the task (gap in our knowledge) was so huge.

Your assessment that I have suggested that we shouldn't try to acquire more
data is incorrect.


You depend on the innovations of scientists in your daily life. In
fact, without modern technologly, it is quite possible that you would
not be able to indulge in your passion for art! Modern technology
creates the wealth that allows people to have the disposable income
to afford your "art".

Ignoratio elenchi. You're arguing against something I didn't say. My
critique was concerned with what we do with our present dataset (make
outlandish claims about the universe). At no point did I advocate that we
don't try to expand our dataset - in fact, I don't think I even raised the
issue.

Donal's desperately trying to drag a red herring across the thread.

PDW