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