From: retour@contactprospect.com   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   "David Mitchell"  a écrit dans le message de   
   news: pan.2007.02.03.21.36.08.238353@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   > 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.   
      
   There is no order.  An experiment which discriminate the explanations must   
   be done.  An order implies a scale of values: first something serious or   
   "rational", then something crazy.  By that token, the second option is never   
   investigated, and the first one goes from failure to failure, which is   
   claimed to prove nothing, and leads to the sadly famous: "there is no proof   
   (and no investigation besides.)"   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   In the example of Kepler, he thought of a geometrical harmony, set up by   
   God.  His mathematical description of an orbit then became more likely than   
   the epicycles theory.   
      
   In the example of Newton, he thought that the moon could fall on earth,   
   which was empirically absurd, but became more likely by postulating the   
   existence of two equal masses.   
      
   --   
   ~~~~ clmasse on free F-country   
   Liberty, Equality, Profitability.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)