Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: donh
biological science does not rely on inductive reasoning about experimentation and discoveries to increase our confidence in theories? Say again?

We've been over that in previous posts - it uses both. Even to develop proof of theories. ;-)

387 posted on 02/15/2004 9:17:22 PM PST by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies ]


To: Ophiucus
We've been over that in previous posts - it uses both. Even to develop proof of theories.

I'll tell you what. I propose a theory of grue. Stop lights have three colors, red, yellow and grue. Grue lights are green right now, but in the year 2099, they will all turn blue. Now, being a good scientist, I go around driving from city to city, keeping a notepad record of all the glue lights I see, and lo! After months of extensive investigation, I discover all the lights I've ever checked satisfy the criteria of grue-ness, so--Am I ready to publish my "proof"?

I can virtually guarantee that the grue theory will withstand every test the journal's referee's and critics can concoct. Clearly, by your criteria, this is a solid proof.

Let me just suggest you that you refrain from trying to defend science from the well-prepared creationists at your local school board. You will be handed your head in short order. Just because some half-baked metaphysical theory happens to be common practice, doesn't mean it can reason its way out of paper bag.

425 posted on 02/16/2004 8:59:21 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson