Re: One more thing

From: Walter Hicks (
Date: Tue Sep 23 2003 - 09:05:11 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: You don't know G_____! (Gould)"

    allenroy wrote:

    > Walter Hicks wrote:
    > > No, Allen. I could comment on much of what you said but, rather, I just take
    > > it in as information. What you said was basically your opinion and I respect
    > > that. I don't believe it to be true but what is the sense of objecting?
    > Then, is it true that you believe that empirical evidence is neutral? If so,
    > why do you persist in trying to do science in a mode that is 50 years out of
    > date?

    I think that you confuse me with someone else. I never said that empirical
    evidence is neutral. Evidence, be it historical, physical or laboratory are used
    in attempt to validate a hypothesis --- that and not more. You do it just like
    everybody else. I see no area of debate or discussion. Maybe you want to continue


    Walt Hicks <>

    In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)

    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 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 23 2003 - 09:04:30 EDT