The gaps in science occur when terminology and definition describe different aspects.
Often rather than just create new labels to describe it is better to rethink entire definition of understanding?
When the understanding of one concept does not blend to the next you have found something in science that needs to be studied rather than accepted as "columns" of understanding from different doctrines.
And when you can not describe something with current terminology does it mean that the entire basis for premise needs to be rethought in terms of what it would take to understand and describe what is valid?
That is where all the scientific breakthroughs come from.
For example why is it a comparison of Apples to Pears rather than Apples, to Pear/Apples, to Pears?
Copyright 2013 Thomas Paul Murphy
Originally published on 08 01 2013 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com