From: Harvey Newstrom (newstrom@newstaffinc.com)
Date: Wed Jun 23 1999 - 20:42:24 MDT
I am getting really concerned by what passes for "logic" in these recent
discussions. Most of the arguments here lately seem to boil down to random
theories with no supporting evidence. When someone objects, the defense is
"you can't prove I'm not right." This is not logical, not scientific, and
not Extropian.
The principal of Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation probably
is correct. If a simple theory explains the observable data, a more complex
theory should not be required. People here seem to be making theories more
complex to address their particular desires, without explaining the
observations better. In most cases, the added complexity cannot be tested
because there is a requirement to destroy all the evidence or to avoid
testing too rigorous for some reason.
The rule on this list used to be that "extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof". If someone wants to theorize an unprovable,
untestable, unverifiable explanation, they can do so. But don't call it
science. This is a religious belief of faith.
-- Harvey Newstrom <mailto://newstrom@newstaffinc.com> <http://newstaffinc.com> Author, Consultant, Engineer, Legal Hacker, Researcher, Scientist.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:16 MST