18-07-2003, 07:54 PM
|
|
|
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
In article , (Gregory L. Hansen) writes:
In article ,
Richard Alexander wrote:
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:xEBRa.82631$N7.11056@sccrnsc03...
What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all,
Before the scientific method can be used, the object of investigation
must be accessible. Thus, one-time events are likely to be beyond the
scope of the scientific method. Historical events in general are
beyond the scope of the scientific method, though one can use the
scientific method on some on-going after-effects.
...
I think this guy has more faith in, and gives more scope to science than
the typical scientist does. He has an issue -- God is not merely unproven
or untestable, God must be provably false, it must not even make sense to
bring up the subject, and let science and logic be modified such that it
is so. Which is about as bad as the creationists who pick their own
premise -- the Bible -- and let all other intellectual endeavor be
modified such that the premise remains intact.
Yep, we see here again the pattern that all zealots, no matter what
their particular brand of zealotry is, are essentially the same.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"
|