[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily.

On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:08:49AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational
> arguments.

If it's true that gerbils can't form rational arguments (not much doubt
that they can't express rational arguments, but that's not your claim),
then the mere ability to form rational arguments (or, even better express
those arguments) qualifies as demonstrating evidence.

> It is logically impossible for you to disprove this,
> because your burden-of-proof notion is backwards (in formal logic,
> you've allowed a falsehood to be introduced, so it is impossible to
> draw any conclusions within the current situation).

You're confusing science with math.  Science uses math as a tool of
thought, but they are very different.  It's not very hard to find
descriptions of science, if you care to study up on what it is.
Here's something google pulled up, ferinstance:


[Though, practically speaking, I don't know of any way to falsify
string theory.]

That said, this thread no longer has anything to do with asking candidates
any question.  [Note the subject line.]


Reply to: