🚀 go-pugleaf

My original posting is relevant (in my view) because it raises questions
about "the rules of evidence".  How do we prove that something occurred, or
something exists?  There are many people who believe in "God" because some
"inner voice" tells them so - but how do they prove it to anyone else?  The
movie "Contact" (1997) does this re science, when Dr.Ellie Arroway (Jodie
Foster) goes into outer space (so she thinks) has an experience there, but
then can't prove it to anyone else.  Hence the need for commonality and
externality in evidence; at least if we try to convince other people.  I
don't go along with any hoax theory, if sufficient people have empirical
evidence to the contrary.  Yet many scientific theories of the past were
respectable at the time (phlogiston; Piltdown skull; Lamarckism), and have
since been discarded.  Only recently has theory about origin of birds been
revised - they are now thought to be descendants of dinosaurs.  Ever rehd
"Worlds in Collision"?, quite convincing, except that the theory explaining
the "facts" involved is even more incredible than the "facts" so explained.
==============================
Mark Addinall wrote in message <3d2e238b.258899542@news.optusnet.com.au>...
>On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 07:56:53 +1000, "Don H"
><donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>Take it to another group.  It is off topic for aus.science, and
>I am sure sci.logic.
>
>Mark Addinall.
>
>