On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:05:54 +0100, "Gareth Magennis"
> wrote:

>
>"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
>> "Ethan Winer" wrote ...
>>>> Hippie ****s like you have even fewer answers, and produce _zero_
>>>> working technology.
>>>
>>> LOL, that's a great come-back. It kills me when "believers" diss real
>>> science, but of course they have nothing of their own to show.
>>
>> On the other hand we have a rich history of "real science"
>> that seemed just as valid in its time, but in retrospect is
>> embarassing at best. And I wouldn't bet my life that 100%
>> of everything we think of as "real science" today will stand
>> the test of time and further research.
>>
>
>
>Agreed, and I think the biggest mistake made is to think that Science deals
>with "facts". It does not, it merely puts forward hypotheses that fit
>certain observations. A particularly good hypothesis (theory) will also
>predict certain outcomes that may later be observed to be as predicted.
>These theories are only designed to be "true" until an observation
>condtradicts it, or it is updated by a better version, they are absolutely
>NOT describing things that are actually true or are known facts. There are
>no known facts at all. (except perhaps in Mathematics, which precisely
>defines the facts it is proving)
>

Even maths doesn't deal in facts. All proofs rest on axioms - which
are pretty good assumptions about how the world works, but they are
just assumptions. So a proof will really read "Such and such is
proven, assuming that...".

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com