"Jeff Young" wrote in message
m...
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:xEBRa.82631$N7.11056@sccrnsc03...
"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte
limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper
postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:16:35 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ![$;F1k-Y'hiac\&8#rjC`%+^ (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165


"Richard Alexander" wrote in message
om...
root wrote in message
...
Richard Alexander wrote:
Historical events are--surprise!--History, not Science, and
History
is
distinct from Science.

But it might take science to reveal history. The distinction isn't
as clear as you suggest.

There is a difference between science involvement and being a
science.
Many church auditoriums are designed through the science of
acoustics,
but that doesn't mean that religion is a science.

Certain terms have taken on a life of their own. A "quantum leap" or
"quantum advance" is used where we would normally say a "huge leap"
or
a "huge advance." Of course, a true quantum leap is an extremely
small
thing, the difference, say, in electron orbits. Likewise, saying
that
something is not scientific has become akin to saying that something
is erroneous.

I disagree. I would argue that creationism is not scientific, because
the
hypothesis that creation exists is not testable. That does not mean
the
creationism does not exist, only that science cannot answer the
question
whether or not creationism is true.


What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method
of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all,

Like the proposition "God does not exist"?

That what does not exist? Define your term. So far none of you
true-believers has ever presented anything for consideration, nor specified
anything meaningful, verifiable to search for.

The proposition in question is that an invisible something (still
essentially undefined) may in reality exist, knucklehead. "There is no such
thing" never stands in need of proof, since the burden of proof cannot be
shifted. I'm sure you know this principle of valid argument (logic) by now.


You can stop any time your fallacy of trying to shift the burden of proof to
the non-believers. The non-believers have nothing (no thing) to prove,
knucklehead.


[unsnip]

What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all, even a proposition
like, "It is true that a magic invisible creator of everything might really
exist"?

We have an ongoing scientific investigation of the theory that ETs (not in
evidence) might really exist. Here is how that theory is being investigated,
using the scientific method:


Null : of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
(as in, "There are no ETs.")


---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email

http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm

SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
method.

[...]

The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:

There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).

.... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...

---