>>
>> 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.
O.K., but if you prove something to be true, then it is a fact not a
theory. Some evolution may be fact but Darwin's theory is just a theory.
I would have thought that you would be familiar with Popper's
"falsifiablity" notions. I'm not too great at explaining philosophy. A
"soundbite" of information may be seen at:
http://webug.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys150/fall97/slides/lect02/tsld010.htm
Walt
==========================================
Walt Hicks <whicks@ma.ultranet.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
if you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
==========================================