Now I will answer your follow rhetorical question and that's the last I want to hear about it.
As I just told you, NPA theory is not a point of view...it's a theory. That's why it's called NPA theory and not NPA point of view. you're comparing apples and oranges. Theories are more rigorous and systematic in thought than a point of view because it requires testing and demonstrations of validity.
A point of view is God created the universe. That's a point of view, and not a theory, because it's scientifically unsound and the principles underlying such a point of view defy logic, comprehension, gravity and all the elements of space and time. Belief hinges on faith. Another point of view, human beings began as experiments by Martians. again, that's not a theory, its scientifically unsound, lacks evidence and cannot obtain repeatable results.
Theorizing is a process of arriving at a conclusion. It doesn't require a subjective mind...the computer Big Blue was able to theorize a game plan in defeating Gary Kasparov in chess but Big Blue has no point of view about chess. Computers can form theories, but there is no way to program computers to form points of view (you can download a point of view into a computer, but developing a point of view is not a process a copmuter can engage in). Theorizing over and over again is something a computer can do...it does not require a subjective mind. A point of view is not a process of arriving at a conclusion. If you were to embrace NPA theory as your point of view, you are simply combining two different things. The theoretical conclusion could have been reached as an inference from the evidence, combined with principles from various disciplines. One doesn't need to have a point of view in order to form a theory; though, the theory, which begins as a hypothesis, may initially seek to prove their own point of view or one may take the conclusions from a theory and embrace it as a point of view, but that's not required. One can hold a point of view that is diametrically opposed to the theory that they have introduced, write books on, and promote in one form or another. A scientist can argue for the theory of the big bang, and still have the point of view that a God created the universe. The fact that scientist theorizes that the big bang occurred does not imply it came out of his own point of view. One does not imply the other. Learn the difference. Computers can theorize but computers can't point of view. Theorizing is a process. A point of view is simply a subjective state.
« Back to index