Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sbcs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!sbcs!debray From: debray@sbcs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion,net.misc Subject: Re: Earth Centered Universe Message-ID: <412@sbcs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 15-Jul-83 18:08:44 EDT Article-I.D.: sbcs.412 Posted: Fri Jul 15 18:08:44 1983 Date-Received: Sat, 16-Jul-83 04:41:31 EDT References: <5146@cca.UUCP> Organization: SUNY at Stony Brook Lines: 25 From a posting by cca!charlie: A "fact" is simply a theory with a high degree of confidence. A corollary is that science cannot "prove" any (religious or otherwise) statement false. Scientists might reasonably challenge the methods by which a conclusion is reached, but not the conclusion itself. The Scientific method *can* prove statements false, by experiment. Okay, I really mean "universally quantified statements". If someone makes a universally quantified statement, and I can demonstrate a counterexample, I have proved that statement false. For eaxmple, if someone says "All articles in net.religion are polite", and we both agree on the meanings of "article", "net.religion" and "polite", it shouldn't take me too long to prove that statement false. And surely one can challenge a statement that's internally inconsistent, i.e. self-contradictory? (Actually, Charlie, "the self-contradictory statement" is my counterexample that disproves your universally quantified statement, "No conclusion [read "statement"] can be challenged"). Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook