From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:45:46 +0100, Cl.Massé wrote:   
      
   > "David Mitchell"  a écrit dans le message de   
   > news: pan.2007.02.01.20.35.49.437900@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
   >   
   >> They were hypothesis which were disproved.  That's how science works.   
   >> It self-corrects.  No other system of discovering knowledge can make that   
   >> claim.   
   >   
   > No, it isn't the matter.  Science provided some "likelihoods", and if those   
   > likelihoods were used like you did in that thread, no advances would have   
   > been done.  Science doesn't provide any proof, it can only falsify theories.   
   > So, it can't be used to claim anything.   
      
   I think you missed the point where I said that estimation of likelihood   
   could be used to determine in which order the various explanations for the   
   events should be investigated.  I am not suggesting that these estimations   
   should be used to decide _not_ to investigate anything; simply that   
   testing the most likely hypothesis first might save time.   
      
   Similarly, eliminating any part of the unlikely hypotheses could also be   
   used.   
      
   In each case, estimating the probability of the hypothesis is a useful   
   tool.   
      
   > And yes, other systems of discovering knowledge can change the likelihoods   
   > and make science advance.  So, arguing science in order not to examine other   
   > hypothesis is self-contradictory.   
      
   You might need to explain that more fully, I don't understand what you   
   mean.   
      
   >   
   >> Oh really?  So Wilbur and Orville Wright were poets?  Goddard was a poet?   
   >> Einstein was a poet?   
   >   
   > Kepler and Newton, two famous example, were.   
      
   Big deal.  You found two poets.  Am I supposed to be impressed?   
   They were from a time when everyone was supposed to be well versed in all   
   the "important" skills.  Newton was also a profound believer in Alchemy -   
   are we supposed to assume that a good scientist should believe in the   
   existence of the Philosopher's Stone?   
      
   > Newton made an alexandrine   
   > with the rainbow colours.  Einstein said that imagination is more important   
   > than knowledge.   
      
   Really?  Do you have a cite?   
      
   > Science alone is as efficient as a bird with only one wing.   
      
   I agree that imagination and creativity are important to a scientist; but   
   they're only secondary concerns.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get   
   = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)