>DF You have no room for unknown causes. In your "example" there are 10
"possible" explanations. In practice, only the explanations that are known
to be possible can be among the 10. You eliminate 9 as implausible or
false. The remaining hypothesis is only a possible explanation not proven
false.
You just claim the remaining hypothesis is "only" a possible explanation not
proven false, without giving a reason why and you have not explained the flaw
in the argument that I claim logically explains why the remaining hypothesis
is true. The two assumptions PE is based upon is that there is a correct
theory for explaining the reality being investigated and that reality follows
the law of no contradiction. Without these two assumptions reason could not
determine the truth about any reality, supernatural or natural. If there is a
correct theory that describes a certain reality and all possible hypothesis
for explaining that certain reality are false except for one hypothesis, then
PE implies that this one non-false hypothesis is true. If the remaining
hypothesis was also false then there would be no correct theory which would
contradict the premise that there is a correct theory. Thus, if the premise
that there is a correct theory is true then the one non-false hypothesis must
be true otherwise the premise would be contradicted. Thus, PE is derived from
the requirement for no contradiction which is a fundamental logical
principal. Since PE is derived from a logical concept PE is also a logical
concept. Science attempts to use PE and other logical concepts to determine
the truth about reality; thus, the scientific procedure has the potential to
logically determine something true about reality.
>DF You can't imply "true" unless you can test your hypothesis with
experiments where you can predict the outcome and get the outcome you
predicted.
I agree observations are needed to show hypothesis false in order for one to
possibly get to the point of proving a hypothesis true. However, just because
there are some observations from experiments consistent with the theory does
not prove the theory correct. There may be another theory that also makes
predictions which are consistent with observations from experiments. To prove
a theory you need more than just show some observations consistent with it,
you also need to show there is no other successful explanation which means
one needs PE to logically prove something true about reality.
>DF Miracles are not repeatable through experimentation. Therefore, you can
never prove that anything was the product of an act of miraculous
intervention.
Just because some phenomenon cannot be repeated does not mean it is
impossible to scientifically verify a theory about the phenomenon. Scientific
analysis is often applied to unrepeatable historical events such as in
astronomy, archaeology, forensic science, etc... For example, the big bang
occurred once within the life of our universe; however, there is plenty of
scientific reasoning that indicates it is true by evaluating it's after
effects. The after effects of the supernatural could also be evaluated and if
there is definitely no natural explanation then PE implies the supernatural
intervened as explained in http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/spntid.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 08:45:46 EST