David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> James wrote in message <36059CCE.A6CCBC8E at nospam.com>...
> >All your points are well taken. I had thought of some of them
> >myself, but not all of them. I think the big problem is that
> >there is no way to place good odds on anything we are
> >discussing. Without being able to assign numbers to anything I
> >can't say (or refute) that it would or wouldn't have happened
> >with 600,000 people. I can't even be certain at 5 billion...
> >It just seems like an awful lot of people to me.
>> There are two mutually exclusive definitions of science -- explaining the
> unknown in terms of the known, and explaining empirical evidence in terms of
> imagined structures -- but this giggly thing, assigning numbers to something
> not defined, does not come under the aegis of either.
I think we both acknowledged that we were operating in a "giggly" realm during
this discussion. That's exactly why I said "Without being able to assign
numbers to anything..." Nonetheless, I am still interested in what other
people's opinions are on the topic. Proveable or not, at least they often
present new ideas and new ways of looking at things, and often help me to revise
my own thoughts.