home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.origins
- Path: sparky!uunet!portal!nntp1.radiomail.net!fernwood!aurora!isaak
- From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
- Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
- Message-ID: <1993Jan26.150735.3413@aurora.com>
- Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
- Organization: The Aurora Group
- References: <1993Jan21.200913.1246@linus.mitre.org> <1jpmv9INN272@dmsoproto.ida.org> <1993Jan22.171150@IASTATE.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 15:07:35 GMT
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <1993Jan22.171150@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
- >In article <1jpmv9INN272@dmsoproto.ida.org>, rlg@omni (Randy garrett) writes:
- >> Hmm, if you can't prove anything, how can you disprove anything?
- >
- > The button on the table in front of me is unmarked. I hypothesize that
- >pressing it will cause the Earth to explode. [presses button] The Earth did
- >not explode. I have disproven the hypothesis.
- >
- > My hypothesis is now that it will call up the process list. [presses button]
- [process list appears]
- >it did call up the process list. Does this prove that my hypothesis is correct?
- >No, it only proves that it is better than my hypothesis that it causes the Earth
- >to explode. Only by repeated testing can I reduce the thousands of hypothesis
- >down to only a narrow range.
-
- You're missing an important distinction. If your hypothesis was that
- pressing the button once would call up the process list, I would say you
- did prove the hypothesis. If, however, you had made the more useful
- hypothesis that pressing the button would *always* call up the process
- list, then, as you say, you have only provided evidence that your
- hypothesis is correct. You couldn't prove such a hypothesis unless
- you could push the button an infinite number of times.
- --
- Mark Isaak "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
- isaak@aurora.com generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
-