While such non-empirical theories are non-scientific, this doesn't mean =
they aren't true. They're just -scientifically- useless. This is a =
limitation on science as much as the theories in question.
The positivists wanted to say such theories were meaningless -- neither =
true nor false. (They put ethics and metaphysics into this category.) =
But one should be very wary of letting positivistic analyses of meaning =
carry any weight, at least if one values the truth, since few things are =
more demonstrably incoherent than logical positivism. We're best off =
avoiding not only the letter, but the spirit of such attitudes, in my =
view.
----------
From: Glenn Morton[SMTP:GRMorton@gnn.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 1996 11:58 AM
To: evolution@Calvin.EDU
Subject: RE: Hugh Ross, string theory and fossil man
>Even if they turn out to be false, to Ross' credit, he -does- make
> predictions. And when it comes to standing as science, better to have
> false predictions than no predictions at all. (Just as obviously, as
> Glenn points out, when it comes to standing as -truth-, a theory that
> fundamentally makes false predictions is not true.)
Actually, I probably need to clear something up. These are not =
predictions=20
Ross explicitly makes. They are predictions required by his view. All=20
views make predictions in this sense.=20
Ross does not say a lot about fossil man (I cited nearly all of it) but=20
what he does say has failed the test even before he wrote some of it.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm
Only 1 more day till I get this ^%$#&*@ cast off my arm