>Related to testibility is repeatibility. To be considered valid science, a
>claim should be testable by anyone who has the appropriate equipment and
>repeats the conditions under which the phenomenon is claimed to occur.
That's the old "repeatability" gaff, that I've heard so repeatedly my eyes
are crossing. It's been used primarily by creationists to claim (falsely)
that evolution and creation are equally unscientific because you cannot
repeat origins. Please, don't go down that path again. It's been beat to
death a thousand times, even on this reflector. Life is too short. Am I
sounding exasperated? I must protest the tendency of some reflectorites (I
don't know if Bill is one of them) who jaw-bone issues endlessly without
resolving, and without coming up with anything new. The issue comes up a
few months later, and it's back to square one, starting all over again with
the same thing. Is this a therapy club for biddies of the terminally
academic variety? Arrrrrrggggghhhhh!
... Sorry, I just had to get that out. I feel much better now.
>The supernatural is excluded because it is assumed to be nonrepeatible.
No, repeatability is not required. The supernatural was excluded from
science because it was assumed to be untestable. My book overthrows that
assumption. The supernatural sometimes has a testable foundation, and under
those circumstances it can be scientific.
>Walter, if you claim a supernatural occurrence -- an act of God, say -- is
>testable, are you not implicitly claiming that it is possible for an
>experimenter to establish conditions under which God will do something,
>predictably? And doesn't that amount to claiming that under these
>conditions it is possible for a human experimenter to control God, however
>slightly?
Bill, if you claim a Piltdown fraud -- an act of a hoaxer, say -- is
testable, are you not implicitly claiming that it is possible for an
experimenter to establish conditions under which a hoaxer will do something,
predictably? And doesn't that amount to claiming that under these
conditions it is possible for a human experimenter to control the hoaxer,
however slightly?
I substituted a 'Piltdown designer' into Bill's statements to replace 'God'.
The substitution reveals the faulty reasoning.
My theory is not driven by assumptions about the designer. Rather, it is
driven by observations of nature and its patterns. That is precisely how
you conclude intelligent designers in your daily life. That is precisely
how you conclude a Piltdown hoaxer. My theory is squarely build on the
means and methods that people use in their daily living.
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128