**Previous message:**Dick Fischer: "Re: Rational Methodology"**Maybe in reply to:**SHinrichs9@aol.com: "Rational Methodology for Evaluating Supernatural Claims"**Next in thread:**Joel Z Bandstra: "RE: Rational Methodology for Evaluating Supernatural Claims"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*>DF You have no room for unknown causes. In your "example" there are 10
*

"possible" explanations. In practice, only the explanations that are known

to be possible can be among the 10. You eliminate 9 as implausible or

false. The remaining hypothesis is only a possible explanation not proven

false.

You just claim the remaining hypothesis is "only" a possible explanation not

proven false, without giving a reason why and you have not explained the flaw

in the argument that I claim logically explains why the remaining hypothesis

is true. The two assumptions PE is based upon is that there is a correct

theory for explaining the reality being investigated and that reality follows

the law of no contradiction. Without these two assumptions reason could not

determine the truth about any reality, supernatural or natural. If there is a

correct theory that describes a certain reality and all possible hypothesis

for explaining that certain reality are false except for one hypothesis, then

PE implies that this one non-false hypothesis is true. If the remaining

hypothesis was also false then there would be no correct theory which would

contradict the premise that there is a correct theory. Thus, if the premise

that there is a correct theory is true then the one non-false hypothesis must

be true otherwise the premise would be contradicted. Thus, PE is derived from

the requirement for no contradiction which is a fundamental logical

principal. Since PE is derived from a logical concept PE is also a logical

concept. Science attempts to use PE and other logical concepts to determine

the truth about reality; thus, the scientific procedure has the potential to

logically determine something true about reality.

*>DF You can't imply "true" unless you can test your hypothesis with
*

experiments where you can predict the outcome and get the outcome you

predicted.

I agree observations are needed to show hypothesis false in order for one to

possibly get to the point of proving a hypothesis true. However, just because

there are some observations from experiments consistent with the theory does

not prove the theory correct. There may be another theory that also makes

predictions which are consistent with observations from experiments. To prove

a theory you need more than just show some observations consistent with it,

you also need to show there is no other successful explanation which means

one needs PE to logically prove something true about reality.

*>DF Miracles are not repeatable through experimentation. Therefore, you can
*

never prove that anything was the product of an act of miraculous

intervention.

Just because some phenomenon cannot be repeated does not mean it is

impossible to scientifically verify a theory about the phenomenon. Scientific

analysis is often applied to unrepeatable historical events such as in

astronomy, archaeology, forensic science, etc... For example, the big bang

occurred once within the life of our universe; however, there is plenty of

scientific reasoning that indicates it is true by evaluating it's after

effects. The after effects of the supernatural could also be evaluated and if

there is definitely no natural explanation then PE implies the supernatural

intervened as explained in http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/spntid.htm

**Next message:**Joel Z Bandstra: "RE: Rational Methodology for Evaluating Supernatural Claims"**Previous message:**Dick Fischer: "Re: Rational Methodology"**Maybe in reply to:**SHinrichs9@aol.com: "Rational Methodology for Evaluating Supernatural Claims"**Next in thread:**Joel Z Bandstra: "RE: Rational Methodology for Evaluating Supernatural Claims"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Thu Nov 30 2000 - 08:45:46 EST
*