>Well, I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree - sort of. I see where
>you're coming from when you say that you and I are not able to prove these
>Laws ourselves. But what I am trying to get across is that the scientific
>community holds themselves to a standard that when a Law is proven as such,
>it is based upon previously known facts, therefore not needing to be proven
>by me to know that is law. I went to school for Math, and this is how
>mathematical Laws are conceived. I remember proofs being such a pain for
>this reason. You know what the outcome will be, but making that assertion
>cannot make it fact. It must be proven in such a way that makes the Law
>indisputable, namely basing your proof using previously known facts.
>
>Time for lunch in this part of the woods! See you guys in an hour or so...
Exactly. So you believe this scientific community. And you believe them
on what basis?
Because you believe in the system? And you believe in the scientific
system why? Because they can reproduce answers?
And you believe they can reproduce answers because? Because some other guy
said he could reproduce them?
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
