Khuutra said:
appolose said:
Khuutra said:
I do not know where you are getting this tenet from. If something is observed not to be true, ever, then it's not true. If we can find an explanation, fine, but if we can't, theories get thrown out. That's not in violation of science.
Here, let me break down your hypothetical, see if I have this right:
Scientist A observes a phenomenon.
Scientist B observes soemethign that suggests that phenomenon could never happen.
For argument's sake, we will say that they observed these separate happenings a billion times.
About right so far?
|
But haven't we already gone over this? We disussed the number of counter-observations that are needed to defeat the notion that a particular observation is well-established, and agreed that it was more than one.
As for your breakdown, B is incorrect. In my Rath-scenario, the 2nd observation does not suggest that the first could never happen. It suggested what it suggested. The contradiction follows from the idea that the physical is all there is. If it were, then this wouldn't be happening. As it is, it is happening, so there must be nonphysical (supernatural). Since there is only going to be the physical alone or the phsyical and the supernatural, the contradiction ensues.
|
You are being immensely unclear, and no, all it takes is pretty much one instance to break a law, or even a theory. Sometimes one instance is all we get.
What kind of scenario are you talking about? You suggest matter appearing outo f nothing, but that does not suggest the supernatural. You have yet to suggest anything that would suggest the supernatural. I don't think you possibly could. Ever.
|
You said it right here, "And yes, it takes more than one observation, but all it takes is a repeatable phenomenon that contradicts a theoyr and the theory's gone, out the window, bye-bye". That is more than one instance.
My scenario with Rath was "Matter cannot be created physically. Matter comes into existence" In conjuction with the first observation (which, mind you, is hypothetical), that gives the situation I described above. Hopefully, that clears it up.
