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

To: darbymcgill
I agree that one might easily "infer" from the statement that none has been found over none exists

Btw, this wasn't a correct statement of the issue.

"None has been found" does in fact mean that "none exists".

"Evidence" in science is like "evidence" in the law. Until it is discovered and recorded it doesn't exist. Indeed even the observation/discovery of the underlying factual material doesn't make it "evidence." It only becomes evidence when it's relevance to some scientific issue or problem has been elucidated.

727 posted on 03/08/2006 6:40:53 PM PST by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 705 | View Replies ]


To: Stultis
It only becomes evidence when it's relevance to some scientific issue or problem has been elucidated.


Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.

A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].


730 posted on 03/08/2006 6:43:33 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | 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