Brad - Clarification

I fear I may have been unclear (or at least misread) in my definition of "ultimate". In the case of frames of reference, I mean that "ultimate" should not be construed to mean "best." I believe it is better expressed as "largest" or, as Eric said, "final."

To Ben Snow: It is a curious example you give, with ants and ever expanding basketballs, but I believe you are overlooking one factor - though the ant cannot perceive it, there is a world beyond the basketball, far greater and complex than it will ever be. Just because we are confined to the surface of the basketball does not preclude the existence of something beyond. In fact, the existence of a basketball implies the existence of something outside itself. The basketball has an "edge," a limit to what it encompases, which is expanding. What is it expanding into? There must be something to contain it, a space beyond space for it to truely have the capacity to grow. In order to be defined as "separate" or "contained," the thing in question must exist inside of something larger.

No room for debate? Who can say that? Who has the authority to declare any topic off the table? To declare that there is no room for debate would be completely unscientific. How could we ever discover new things about our world? What if you told Louise Pasteur that there was no room to debate spontaneous generation, and that microscopic organisms could not exist? Or if you told Nicolas Copernicus that there was no room to debate orbits and the center of the solar system? How about Einstein and his theories of relativity? The moment we loose the ability to debate we loose the ability to know anything; it is only by debate that we can compare ideas to find the truth.

My aim is not to create an argument but to prevent stagnation in our scientific opinions. A healthy clash of opinions is good; if we do not know why we know what we know, then can we really know at all?