Regardless of my skills- you put it far more concisely and directly than I can.
Scientific 'proof' of a propostion is not the absence of being disproved (the old trivial truth: almost nothing can be proven false directly).
Scientific 'proof' can be had showing that the proposition being false is impossible.
Scientific 'proof' is showing how the proposition fits every data point better than any other theory.
Scientific 'proof' can be had by deriving preditctions from a mathematically rigorous causal model.
A beautiful testimony on the limitations of man when confronting the vastness of the universe is: We can declare very few claims of fact immediately false, and only slightly more things true.
But, in a related vein, we can reasonably and decisively find a lot of claims to be bullshit. Not provably false, but certainly not true. The distinction is not a subtle as it seems. Not being able to prove something false lends that claim NO veracity and NO respect- its just part of the infinity of things we can't prove false.
Davin L.
Flame » in reply to "demonstrably false"
very well put
The whole thread (45 posts)
- The Neurotics Zone?
- re: The Neurotics Zone?
- Yes, I know. It was soooo much better when you were not here. (n/t)
- It is not what it was
- I still love you man! Sniff.
- I don't remember Dan as so much above the fray
- I don't think that word means what you think it does.
- "demonstrably false"
- My knowledge of it extends far beyond, say, your grasp of the notion of Irony
- Dead wrong on your definition, 50% wrong on your analysis, and quite revealing.
- I don't think that word means what you think it does.
- Dan attempted to insult me, several times. (n/t)
- A lot of those were funny........
- Don't forget, "Mostly Brosz" is still "slightly everybody else." (n/t)
- You can always leave
- Ah, one I forgot...The (n/t) depth of comments Zone? (n/t)
- If you feel the zone has no worth, then don't let the screen door... (n/t)