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

To: Ophiucus
No, I have simply taken the position that your definition of proof is to rigorous for practical science, and is that of the abstract.

It is not intensely abstract to expect that words should not have diametrically opposite meanings at the same time, even if some people with degrees in natural science misuse them thusly. Does "proved" means something that is subject to question? Or not? Or are you simply going to continue to insist that "proved" means both things at the same time?

521 posted on 02/19/2004 1:08:11 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies ]


To: donh
expect that words should not have diametrically opposite meanings at the same time,

Words have different meanings to different people of different backgrounds. If I were to say I needed to abduct your arm - you might wonder why this nut wants to take away your arm - when all I wanted to do was test the range of motion and move your arm away from your body.

If I say that a fact is a well observed occurrence and that a coherent set of supportive facts can be offered as proof of a hypothesis then I am using different definitions for fact and proof than you are. My set comes from my background and are understood and usable in my environment.

524 posted on 02/19/2004 1:58:53 AM PST by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | 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