Well, I disagree
The best way to prove someone is wrong is with empirical evidence.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:58, Share, Reply)
The best way to prove someone is wrong is with empirical evidence.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:58, Share, Reply)
And anyway
I'm sure there have been studies where people have been sure one thing was going to happen, and were totally surprised by the outcome.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:01, Share, Reply)
I'm sure there have been studies where people have been sure one thing was going to happen, and were totally surprised by the outcome.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:01, Share, Reply)
No!
Say it aint so Coasty! Science knows everything surely?
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:10, Share, Reply)
Say it aint so Coasty! Science knows everything surely?
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:10, Share, Reply)
I agree with that too
But why should it be necessary? Just because there's a crackpot theory with no conceivable explanation in science, why is it then given enough credence to warrant further scientific investigation?
My point is simply that the chances of anything being positively proven are close to zero. Doing experiments just to prove that something is wrong when you are already certain of the outcome is a waste of time.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:07, Share, Reply)
But why should it be necessary? Just because there's a crackpot theory with no conceivable explanation in science, why is it then given enough credence to warrant further scientific investigation?
My point is simply that the chances of anything being positively proven are close to zero. Doing experiments just to prove that something is wrong when you are already certain of the outcome is a waste of time.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:07, Share, Reply)