[donh]

It would not and you know it. A silly example that uses the counter examples of fallicies in the logic you were earlier promoting. Grue - you're deliberately ignoring important factors like a mechanism, agent, or system. Try a better one.

Excuse me? Please specify the name of the fallacy on which I rely to prove the Grue theory? There is no difference, as it relates to proof, between my projecting into the future, and paleontologists projecting into the fossil gaps. Paleontologists have no better claim then I have concerning induction over periods of no-available-evidence. Kindly specify how mechanism, agent, or system, whatever those are, are a requirement of proof.

[donh]

Does it not occur to you that you are defending a dead horse here? Is it your contention that "proof" means "Something we absolutely believe, but is subject to question?" Or do you wish to take the stand that scientific facts are not subject to question? This will come as quite good news to the proponents of the fixed continent theory, the phrenology theory, and the curative bleeding theory.