On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:47:13 -0500, Richard wrote:

On 7/20/2012 12:48 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:12:59 -0500, wrote:

On 7/20/2012 9:31 AM, Richard wrote:
On 7/20/2012 7:56 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/19/2012 11:53 AM, Richard wrote:

Real scientist do not attempt to PROVE any theory.
They try to DIS-prove it.
Because all the positive proofs in the world fall to one simple
disproof. That's how science works.

That's the problem with the "science" being offered in this case.
Theory is being offered as proof.

The only branch of science that does that is political science.

Bingo ... give that man a case of MinWax.



LOL. Well, almost.
I kinda skipped the part about the hypothesis coming first.
But in this crowd ...

A minor issue ... your point rose well above any semantic argument.

The point of the "semantic argument" was that not all "theories" are created
equal. The "theory of AGW" is no such thing, regardless of what the AGW nuts
say. It is an hypothesis, no more. The "Theory of Gravitation" is the
counterexample. The issue is science, not religion.


Anyway, thanks for the Minwax!

Excluded, of course, is any anticipated use on cherry ...


While that is all perfectly true, one must always consider the audience
when writing anything.

Say "hi-poth-o-sys" and watch eyes glaze over before the last syllable
comes out. The great unwashed masses just don't "get it".

But they know the words "theory" and "proof" (if not the meanings).

OK, let's stipulate that in laymen's terms "theory" becomes "proof" and
"hypothesis" becomes "theory". We can't talk about the "Theory of
gravitation" and the "theory of AGW" with equivalence. The former becomes the
"proof (or law) of gravity"; it has been "proven". You gotta be consistent
with your terms or all meaning goes out the window (the whole purpose of moral
equivalence - to make all meaning disappear). Science just doesn't work that
way.

By the way, would you like a fresh can of Minwax?
I seem to have a surplus here...

;-)