Bible-beater pilots

L,

Equally acceptable: Propose a test that would prove any of them wrong.


Nope! Science isn't about proving negatives. It just doesn't make sense.

Give me one statement in science that you cannot prove. Give me one
statement that doesn't hold up to observation in reality. OTOH, the
religious "statements" made by the OP have no basis in observation, they
cannot be proven - they are, for all we know, pure conjecture.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

L,



Equally acceptable: Propose a test that would prove any of them wrong.




Nope! Science isn't about proving negatives. It just doesn't make sense.

I suggest you go back and read up on the Mikkelson-Morley experiments
with the
speed of light. IIRC they earned the Nobel Prize by proving that "ether"
(the ether
of the ancients, not the chemical) didn't exist.


Give me one statement in science that you cannot prove.

"Life as we know it does not exist anywhere in the universe."

In order to prove this statement true, you would have to examine every
possible location
throughout the universe and show that nowhere is there life as we know it.

On the other hand, you can easily prove this statement false - just
find life as we know
it somewhere else.

Give me one
statement that doesn't hold up to observation in reality. OTOH, the
religious "statements" made by the OP have no basis in observation, they
cannot be proven - they are, for all we know, pure conjecture.

I agree. My point is that while they can never be proven true, they
can also never be
proven false.

Rich Lemert

L,

Well, Michaelson and Morley set out to determine the properties of the
ether. They ended up _observing_ stuff inconsistent with the ether
theory. So that one went overboard. In the process, they found that the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source (frame
of reference, special relativity and all that).

It's not that science is never wrong. But scientific laws have a basis
in observation - that's their ultimate test. "There's life on other
planets" is not a scientific law. It's something that, at present, we
have to answer with "I don't know". All we can do is try to calculate
probabilities for that, based on our (limited) knowledge of how life
began. The probability is high.

"Life as we know it does not exist anywhere in the universe."


That is another negative, isn't it? It isn't a "scientific statement"
in the sense I meant, either - as you well know.

As for religious statements: the concept of "proof" is inherently not
part of religion. Religion is about "belief". No need to prove a belief
- and no way to do it, either.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Religion is about "belief". No need to prove a belief

- and no way to do it, either.

This would be fine if the people holding that belief recognized that
that's all it is,
and that another person's beliefs have just as much basis as there's,
and are therefore
just as valid. The problem comes when people mistake "beliefs" for
"truths", and
start insisting that anyone who doesn't believe the same way is damned.

Rich Lemert

L,

We agree on that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)