Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!amdcad!amd!intelca!mipos3!ekwok
From: ekwok@mipos3.UUCP (Gibbons v. Ogden)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.med,talk.rumors,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: A quick restatement for Chris.
Message-ID: <824@mipos3.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-Jul-87 20:03:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: mipos3.824
Posted: Tue Jul  7 20:03:22 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Jul-87 01:47:28 EDT
References: <6693@allegra.UUCP> <1664@tekcrl.TEK.COM> <1084@aecom.YU.EDU> <1207@isl1.ri.cmu.edu> <1189@aecom.YU.EDU>
Reply-To: ekwok@mipos3.UUCP (Gibbons v. Ogden)
Organization: The Appoint-Spud-McKenzie-to-the-Supreme-Court Campaign
Lines: 27
Xref: mnetor sci.research:182 sci.med:2585 talk.rumors:902 misc.headlines:890

In article <1189@aecom.YU.EDU> version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site mipos3.UUCP mipos3!intelca!oliveb!pyramid!ctnews!sri-unix!rutgers!seismo!ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!pwa-b!philabs!aecom!werner werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) writes:
>
>	Just so we deal in no uncertain terms:
>
>	Here is the best definition of the domain of science that I have
>ever heard formulated:
>
>	"Science deals in disprovable assertions.  If something can not
>be, in theory at least, disproven, by experiment and/or observation, then
>it is not in the domain of science."
>
>	Correlary: nothing can be proven in science, only supported or
>suggested.  However, every good scientific theory suggests situations
>which would be impossible if the theory were valid, and hence provides
>a means to disprove itself.
>

That's very nice, Craig. But, is "disproving" a scientific concept? What, then,
philosophically, is a "disproof" or a "disproof" of the "contrary" (presumably,
a "proof")? If your theory is scientific (the theory that science deals with
disprovable assertions), then exists some assertions in the theory which is
disprovable. But then these assertions deal with the possibility of disprove,
implying the impossibility of disprove in these assertions, which is a 
contradiction, and so the theory is not scientific. Alas, this is hairy-er
than Vatican III, whenever it comes.

--