--- Jon Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snippage> > > >>> William T. Goodall replied: > > >>>>It was proved otherwise last year on this list. > > >>> <Not sure who said:> As I recall, that proof was >>>refuted. O Jeroen, master of the archives? > > >> > > >> It wasn't refuted. It was objected to, and > protested > > >> at, and even disbelieved - but not refuted.
<I said:> As I recall, it was refuted in the sense >that it is > > > not possible to prove or disprove, like the QM > theory that a/new universe(s) is/are created each > second. > > Huh? 'Refute' means an argument has been proven > wrong. If an argument > cannot be proven or disproven then it cannot be > proven wrong, by definition. > 'Refute' used in the way you just did makes no > sense. Well, according to my American Heritage Dictionary (no laughing, you across the pond! ;D ), the first def is as you said, "to prove false or erroneous," but the second def is "to deny the accuracy of," which puts it more on the metaphysical plane - or belief. ;) William also said: In the real world nobody refuted the argument. I do deny its accuracy. :) The philosophical discussion has been outlined again by Dan, and I can't improve on it. But I agree with you that articles of pure faith can't be proven or unproven Isn't Anglic marvelously subtle and deliciously ambiguous? <Mona Lisa smile> FVP Razor __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
