> However, I also see what the problem may be. When I offered my
> comments on this thread, I discussed only the third of Buckna's three
> options, the "no natural mechanism is possible" option. Your previous
> posts seemed to be defending this as a viable conclusion. So I tried
> to point out that in fact it wasn't. Since then, however, you have
> been ignoring it and instead been discussing the "no known natural
> mechanism" options. In essence, we have been discussing apples and
> oranges.
You're right, that's what has been happening.
> So let me ask you point blank: Do you believe that the "no possible
> natural mechanism" option is viable?
It is a rational option in some particular cases, but it is not a
*scientific* option per se. Scientifically, the *most* that we can say
is "no *known* natural mechanism." That leaves open several possible
meta-scientific conclusions, including "unknown natural mechanism" and
"no possible natural mechanism." Choosing between those meta-scientific
options depends upon both scientific intuition and extra-scientific
arguments. (And of course, the "no known natural mechanism" conclusion
must always be provisional.) And I do agree with you that science has
an excellent track record of finding new natural mechanisms. Science's
track record is a good meta-scientific reason for favoring the "unknown
natural mechanism" hypothesis in many cases.
Loren Haarsma