Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument, and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.
If that would be the case RL, then "logical argument" is unneeded in the definition. The way its written, each of the components could be employed separately rather than part of a system. Just because Im paranoid doesnt mean Im wrong.
Posit a logical argument for creationism.
Any and all
That it might make things run more smoothly.A logical argument for SD has to face the same "might".Are you in favour of SD to the point where everything goes tits up.
fm wroteQuote:.Posit a logical argument for creationism.
Actually, that was timber :wink:
Quote:That it might make things run more smoothly.A logical argument for SD has to face the same "might".Are you in favour of SD to the point where everything goes tits up.
Meaningless; wholly conjectural. That "things might run more smoothly" given any state or condition of being not observed is wholly irrelevant. "Things" "run as they do", independent of and apart from the preferences of any observer or commentator. That's just the way things are, and introducing a mystical, undefinable concept violates the principle of Occam's Razor; it is nought but unnescessary complication.