This is something that has bothered me for a while but if there's just one thing that bugs the hell out of me about my fellow skeptics and the broader scientific community is how much they waffle on about how science doesn't deal with proof and that things can't be proven only disproved.
Is there a logical reasoning for such waffling? If not, can we please dispense with it and agree to a certain amount of pragmatism? And even if there is a logical reason for it, wouldn't it make more sense to adopt a more pragmatic assertion that this thing or that thing has been proven when there isn't a better alternative?
Please discus.
Is there a logical reasoning for such waffling? If not, can we please dispense with it and agree to a certain amount of pragmatism? And even if there is a logical reason for it, wouldn't it make more sense to adopt a more pragmatic assertion that this thing or that thing has been proven when there isn't a better alternative?
Please discus.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2no2oU3
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire