Glenn Morton wrote:
> Frankly, thow Walter, the plain fact is that, in science when it comes to
> theories, it is much, much easier to tell what is false than to tell what is
> true. A theory may account for all the known facts but still be false. But
> if a theory fails to account for facts which are fundamental to the
> hypothesis, then the theory is false. And it is much easier to show a
> theory or hypothesis false than to demonstrate its truth. Because of this,
> one must eliminate lots of possibilities in order to do a thorough job.
Ahh, but one needs a theory to throw stones at. It is nice of you to
advance a theory wherein you can be the throwee instead of the thrower.
(I see that George has already hurled a few.)
Heck, even a lousy theory should have one or two supporters. Are you
> >The fact that "nobody agrees with you" is no surprise. Nobody agrees
> >with with anybody on this list for more than a microsecond.
> We are a crankly and surly lot here. :-)
Walt Hicks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 01 2002 - 16:56:20 EDT