Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 26 Sep 2004 00:22:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2385 times
|
| |
|
|
Andrew,
Two things: First, you’re absolutely right in calling me one of the people
stating opinion as fact. And I do know that I’m right. And please believe me
when I tell you that I wish, more than almost anything else, that I was skilled
enough at communication to show you how I know it. But I’m not. The best I can
do on this one is assert what I know and debate how I can. Sometimes it makes
“good” happen and sometimes not.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Andrew Engstrom wrote:
| |
2. Everything is opinion until it can be proven--consult OED for a definition
if you wish, but you’ll find that there is no way to “prove” that human
action is natural. Remember that by strict definition (something you seem to
like), a claim is not scientific unless it is disprovable (implying that it
is also provable).
|
The only specific that I want to address is the very tail of this. It’s just
not so. Science isn’t in the business of proving things. Not anything.
Nothing has ever been proven by science because that’s not part of the process.
Hypotheses can acrue supporting evidence or they can be disproven (which
doesn’t in any way imply provability -- and specifically so).
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| Allow me to say: 1. It is the connotation of the word "superstition" that is unfair, not the strict definition itself. All book knowledge must be tempered with common sense. Othewise, I would not argue with your point here. 2. Everything is opinion (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
