The fight over Darwin - Teaching evolution in schools

[appolose]

Khuutra said:

appolose said:

Khuutra said:

appolose said:

The "negative version" of that is exactly the same thing; of course you can say it.

And why do you keep bringing up things contradictory observations?  My scenario does not consist of those, as I have said countless times now.

If you mean eliminate as in deductively eliminate, then, of course, you're right.  Likewise, you can never deductively prove anything either, so I'm not sure what your point is.  Science is an inductive process.

In my scenario, if you induced non-physicality, then you've induced supernaturality.

You can't do that either.

Here's an example of induction;

"All geese I've ever seen are white.  I assume, then, that all geese are white"

And another;

"All geese I've ever seen are not blue.  I asssume, then, that no goose is blue"

Neither follow, and both are what science do.

No statement that science makes will ever be absolute and no statement will ever be made via "well we've exhausted everything possible except the non-physical", because that is not possible.

First part: Yes, I have acknowledged that a thousand times now.  I acknowledged that when I said science was using induction (in the post you just quoted, in fact)

Second part:  And why is that?  Is my second example somehow an illegal induction?  Is there some unwritten rule that say "K, guys, I kinow this is comepletely arbitrary, but don't induce that something is not the case"?