james.knott-bJEeYj9oJeDQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org
Sat Dec 20 12:05:55 UTC 2003
In all those cases, someone made observations that better explained the
world & universe around us. Then the next person refined those ideas
etc. In each case, the model was improved, bringing us closer to the
facts. They may never be proven, but this method is a lot better than
someone proclaiming the world to be the center of the universe.
Science, including medicine works by constantly trying to improve knowledge.
Tom Legrady wrote:
> Actually, the reverse is the basis of science, ironically.
> You can't prove Newton's Theory of Gravity, but given Einstein's Theory
> of Relativity, you can disprove Newton's theory .... or, more precisely,
> you can prove that Newton's theory is a reasonably approximation, but
> only until you consider certain situations. And Einstein's theories are
> disproven by the the Uncertainty Principle, and by String Theory ....
> which are refinements of Einstein. But it's impossible ( so far ) to
> prove any of these. Maybe String Theory will be proven, and then we'll
> know everything.
> What does this have to do with Perl, kernels, or memory mapping?
> JoeHill wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:40:29 -0500
>> James Knott <james.knott-bJEeYj9oJeDQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> If someone has a claim, the onus is on them to prove their claims,
>>> not on
>>> someone else to prove them wrong.
>> ...actually, IIRC it isn't even logically possible to prove a
>> negative. Been
>> awhile since Formal Logic 101 for me, and many many, er, "memory-loss
> The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml
The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml
More information about the Legacy