sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Intelligent Design

Subject: Re: Intelligent Design
From: WinField
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 21:11:37 -0700
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.astro.amateur, sci.physics, sci.skeptic, sci.archaeology


T Wake wrote:
"WinField" <doghouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:8Cqkf.378$oz5.164@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

T Wake wrote:

Only as long as scientific methods are being used.

Whose scientific methods?  Yours?  Mine?  Darwin's?


Personally I prefer Popper's approach. However, we can have a starting point here.

I propose that the scientific method we use is based on being able to provide a possible experiment which would falsify the theory.

Is that acceptable to you? If not, what is yours?

Fudd's Law: it goes in - it must come out
Correllary to Fudd:  if you push something hard enough, it will
                        fall over

You use Popper, and try to experimentally falsify the above. I'm just going to relax and go-to-school on your science methodology. Use anything from atomic structure to Universe no-edge space_time to your blue-banana Math -- just don't bring Texas or Texans into this.

The stage is yours, T Wake.

        - Winfield

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>