good science?

EdRegis edregis at aol.com
Tue May 9 07:25:48 EST 1995


Kevin W. Ryan writes:
>The problem I have with the insistence that scientific evidence gives 
>us "certainty" or a 100% confidence level is that this position 
>implies that no further evidence need be considered, the jury is in, 
>the case is closed.  

The jury is in and the case is closed on much of science.  No further
evidence need be considered for much of what constitutes science.  It's
just stuff that's known about nature, and "known" means it's true, not
just almost, kinda, we think it's true.  

I realize that this viewpioint contradicts the reigning philosophy of
science theology.  Sorry.

Ed
edregis at aol.com/"186,000 miles per second is not just a good idea, it's
the law!"





More information about the Virology mailing list