In Reply to: Some confusion on all sides here. posted by dado4 on October 12, 2003 at 17:18:50:
By your criteria, there can be no historical knowledge, since past events cannot be observed. You prove too much.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- You have just eliminated history. - Pat D 05:31:37 10/16/03 (16)
- History is not science - dado4 11:11:48 10/16/03 (15)
- You are looking for absolute proof in science. - Pat D 13:16:04 10/16/03 (14)
- Science is, by definition, proof. - dado4 22:11:55 10/16/03 (13)
- Natural science is not pure mathematics. - Pat D 15:57:23 10/17/03 (12)
- Re: Natural science is not pure mathematics. - dado4 09:17:01 10/18/03 (11)
- Re: Natural science is not pure mathematics. - Pat D 17:20:35 10/18/03 (10)
- Re: Natural science is not pure mathematics. - dado4 20:00:33 10/18/03 (9)
- Newton's Law of Gravity and the Orbit of Mercury - Pat D 21:40:20 10/25/03 (7)
- Re: Newton's Law of Gravity and the Orbit of Mercury - dado4 19:57:00 10/30/03 (6)
- ROFL: You contradict yourself again and again. - Pat D 10:03:07 10/31/03 (5)
- I am not seeing this. - dado4 14:53:00 11/01/03 (4)
- Did the sun rise millions of years ago? - Pat D 21:22:32 11/01/03 (3)
- What are we arguing here? - dado4 07:56:07 11/02/03 (2)
- Re: What are we arguing here? - jeff mai 00:35:06 11/03/03 (0)
- GMAB - Pat D 12:21:31 11/02/03 (0)
- Did the sun rise in the distant past? - Pat D 16:49:02 10/19/03 (0)