In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Martin" <ignore@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote in message
;news:bh89g5$aba$2@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
:>
;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
:> news:KEtZa.113809$uu5.16176@sccrnsc04...
;> [snip]
:> > The theologs themselves stipulate that their stuff is all hypothetical
;> > (imaginary), knucklehead.
:>
;> NO, they didn't stipulate that "their stuff" is all hypothetical.
:
;Yes they do, knucklehead. See where they make that clear when they argue _ad
:ignorantiam_, "This HYPOTHESIS Galileo could not prove false!"
Being in a hypothesis does not make a thing hypothetical.
;<quote>
:Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
;criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
:mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
;Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
:sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
;Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
:moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
;are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
:which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
;false!
:</quote>
;(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
:---
;
:
.
|
