(snip)
> Lloyd,
>
> I believe that current "paradigm" in scientific philosophy (advanced by
> Popper) is that theories are advanced and then (if they are potentially
> useful) are either accepted as possibly valid or shown to be invalid. The
> burden of showing that the assumptions 6,7, & 8 (as you have advanced them)
> are incorrect is upon the "philosophers" to _disprove_ -- not the other
way around.
>
> In other words: Theories cannot be proven (as you seem to suggest) but
> can only be disproved. (That's why theories can never become facts ---
> unless, of course, you were Dawkins or Sagan and could declare evolution to
> be a fact.)
I'm sorry, but you lost me here. (Maybe I can't find my way through the
multiple negatives.)
I agree with you that scientific theories are never proved (at least in
the strong sense of proof that exists in logic and in mathematical and
geometrical systems -- what I sometimes call the Q.E.D. sense of proof).
I do think, however, that statements that summarize or express a point of
view or a set of beliefs can be proved in the sense that it can be shown
that such a statement is an accurate representation of what it purports to
represent.
The term "proof" is a plastic one -- it functions in a number of different
ways. Sometimes it means a strong proof, such as occurs in a formal
system. Sometimes it means confirmation, as when the coroner's report is
taken as proof that John was murdered. Sometimes it means evidence, as
when someone is told "Go to court and present your proofs there."
One of the things I was/am trying to do is to bring some logical and
conceptual clarity to the creation/evolution debate so that different
participants will not mean differt things by the same terminology.