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

To: AndrewC
The first piece of evidence is "all" at the beginning. Why go on?

Because you might have difficulty explaining things. For example, if someone tells a blind person that an object is blue, and later the blind person hears another person refer to the object as red, then the initial assumption that the object is blue fails to explain why the second person said it was red.

And if the necessary condition is "all", why stop?

You'll notice that science hasn't stopped yet.

All of the evidence pointed to Galveston getting clobbered. It didn't.

Obviously you have evidence that it didn't.
395 posted on 09/24/2005 9:44:27 PM PDT by Vive ut Vivas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies ]


To: Vive ut Vivas
For example, if someone tells a blind person that an object is blue, and later the blind person hears another person refer to the object as red, then the initial assumption that the object is blue fails to explain why the second person said it was red.

It wasn't an assumption. It was the "truth" by your definition. In any case, what color is the thing? We have evidence. And by your definition the "truth".

396 posted on 09/24/2005 9:51:51 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | 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