>Actually, I don't know that all views do make predictions in that
> sense, at least not scientific predictions. Some have, for all
> practical purposes or even all purposes, only non-empirical
> implications.
>
>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.
>
I agree with you. I should have phrased it, "All views about physical
phenomenon make predictions in this sense." Obviously, not all truths are
verifiable (Thou shalt not kill, is true but unverifiable). But, Ross is
representing his views as being a harmonization of the data of science and
Scripture. As such, his views should be subject to the verification of
the scientific method, as should mine. And as an explanation for physical
phenomenon, his views will predictions about the physical world which can
then be examined to see if his view is consistent with those expectations.
>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.
>
Do you disagree with my statement about the views about physical
phenomenon being subject to examination for consistency with observation?
Shouldn't Ross' view have to match the data?
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm
Only 1 more day till I get this ^%$#&*@ cast off my arm