Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 83:
Line 83: + + + + + + + +
the norm throughout scientific history
:Furthermore, in the Criticisms section there is actually a report quoted which details three possible tests! If something can be proved wrong, that means it is "falsifiable", it isn't really all that difficult to understand. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Furthermore, in the Criticisms section there is actually a report quoted which details three possible tests! If something can be proved wrong, that means it is "falsifiable", it isn't really all that difficult to understand. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
==Clinging to unsupported theories==
*The current theory was the result of the scientists not being able to think of any other atheistic explanation. That's all.
This, unfortunately, has been the norm throughout scientific history. In the 1860s, nobody had been able to come up with the [[germ theory of disease]]. More soldiers died of communicable illnesses in the Civil War than of wounds suffered in battle.
I look forward to a renaissance in science, wherein scientists are able to say, "We just don't know." Then maybe they'll be open to alternatives to their [[methodological naturalism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)