Richardthughes
Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Oh Davetard...
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1647#comment-75056
| Quote | 50. DaveScot // Nov 9th 2006 at 5:44 pm
If you can’t know a) if you’ve modeled the probabilities accurately (or eve that you’re close), and b) what mechanisms or phenomena might “pop up” unexpectedly and provide a naturalistic explanation (see: quasars in the 60s) then what good is the inference?
We use the same probability models that NeoDarwinian evolution uses so we should be at least as confident as those. How do we know that something new might not pop up that throws NeoDarwinian theory in the crapper? Or germ theory? Or any other bit of science? It’s all tentative. Do you understand that all science is tentative?
Comment by DaveScot — November 9, 2006 @ 5:44 pm
|
But NDE doesn't use 'eliminate everything else to be left with NDE', does it Dave?
Well done with
| Quote | It’s all tentative. Do you understand that all science is tentative?
|
- a good reason why the EF is utter bunk.
--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine
|
