🚀 go-pugleaf

Cameron Randale Bass writes:

>>>'Science vs. Religion' is
>>>about as sensible a contest as 'Cooking vs. Linguistics' or 'Sportsmanship
>>>vs. Geology'

>>No, it's experimental proof vs. no proof at all.

> You cannot even offer 'proof' in science that the next experiment
> will show the same thing as the last.  I suggest you reevaluate
> the 'proof'-nature of science.  As far as religion goes, 'proof'
> is not necessary within faith.

As I noticed before, your view about science seems instrumentalistic to me.
I agree with you that the induction principle fails. But the main thing
for science IMO is that experiments can point us to a theory. After we
know that theory, we can predict the outcome of an experiment.
-- 
********************************************************** 
* J.C.A. Wevers                *   The only nature of    * 
* johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl *   reality is physics.   * 
**********************************************************