Bible-beater pilots

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)