ZenKitty wrote:felix dakat wrote:I used stardust to illustrate the fact that common sense is an inadequate guide for explaining natural phenomena. I did not mean to imply that star dust is connected to the ultimate origin of everything what, it seems, you understood me to be arguing.
It doesn't look like you've shown that common sense is really inadequate guide for explaining "natural phenomena". Because first it would come down to what is the criterion for an explanation itself, which seems tough to answer. Second, it would look like start-dust doesn't really say much, but just going beyond what we could actually find it, which is like trying to come up with some "ultimate origin", while that is way more theoretical, in the sense that it goes beyond a simpler common sense answer.
It took more than common sense to design the computers and internet by which we are communicating. So a valid criterion for an adequate explanation for a phenomenon might be when you can control it. It took more than common sense to develop the chemistry whereby we can trace the elements back to the stars from whence they came. That finding has been replicated by multiple sources. So another criteria for an explanation could be when it makes prediction that are replicated. Your second statement doesn't seem to be coherent. My point all along has been that we don't have an explanation for the ultimate origin. I don't know what you're banana-dancing about.