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

To: js1138; MacDorcha
Science is a methodology. It makes no claims to producing any final truth... It does debunk fraud.... But within the scope of observable phenomena, science produces better and more reliable statements than any previous method.

Must something be credible to be reliable?

How can one rationally say that they can divorce the concept of truth from the concepts of either reliability or credibility?

Challenge: try saying something reliable about a readily observable phenomenon that must not at the same time be truthful to make it credible.

Next Challenge: try saying something false which debunks fraud.

377 posted on 05/03/2005 7:03:39 PM PDT by Agamemnon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]


To: Agamemnon
Challenge: try saying something reliable about a readily observable phenomenon that must not at the same time be truthful to make it credible.

the past is not a readily observable phenomenon. Biology and geology have large branches devoted to history. These cannot ever produce an absolute, complete and final truth.

What they attempt is the kind and quality of investigation seen in a first rate criminal investigation, a reconstruction of the important features of the past that can survive any new evidence. Each new piece of evidence that is consistent with the reconstruction adds to its credibility.

398 posted on 05/04/2005 5:44:06 AM PDT by js1138 (e unum pluribus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | 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