Are you arguing facts are good enough until they're not? The Phlogiston Theory was never a fact. Just a damn good explanation to hold us over until real facts kicked in.
At least that's how I see it. Just like Hawkins black hole theory which was opposed from beginning. Just because a smart guy has a great theory doesn't make it a fact. I do realize many theories are fact or will eventually become facts. Just not all and I don't except the "fact for now concept". . On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:34 PM, William Bowen <[email protected]> wrote: > > It had to do with the nature of what we now know as combustion and > oxidation, which, when posited seemed to be the best explanation of > how fire or rust consumed matter. > > As more evidence became available, and experiments were designed to > test the Phlogiston Theory, it was disproved because better > explanation were made to fit the available evidence. > > That's how the Scientific Method works. That's how it is *supposed* to work. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:342595 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
