> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On 17 Sep 96 at 12:45, ken sartor wrote:
> > Another difference is that much of science can be verified or
> > disproved by individuals that are sufficiently motivated. Raw
> > data is readily obtainable...
>
> And is tested by using the scientific method. Once again, you must
> accept the tenets before you can proceed. Your argument seems to be
>
> 1) The scientific evidence that is available convinces me that
> science works
>
> 2) Because science works, scientific evidence is acceptable
>
> Circular.
As far as I know, science works to the extent that:
1) "This experiment directly contradicts that hypothesis/theory."
[Proof by contradiction.]
2) "This experiment provides strong evidence that major deviations
from this hypothesis/theory are false." [Proof by statistical
contradiction.]
Science, in this view, provides a formalism for allowing consensus on
which tests have been conducted, and how well they were conducted.
Scientific evidence, then, is evidence collected within this formalism.
Of course, I am defining when science works in terms of mathematical
coherency.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////