In reply to Clark's article Science and Truth someone said:

As he lost me in the first sentence have you any responses?

(see: http://www.christianforums.com/showp...1&postcount=21)

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

There is a thread in the PB archives on whether inductive reasoning was fallacious. It is related (tangentially) to your question.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

Is Inductive Reasoning Fallacious?

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

ON INDUCTION

No friend of the faith, Russell makes a point.

__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada -

Feileadh Mor
The Orthodox Catechism

Give this a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

This is the scientific model he is referring to is a very solid tool in science for avoiding poor scientific claims.

Let's say Q is a scientific claim and let P be a logical consequence of Q. In other words: if Q then P.

Now the denial of the consequence takes the form:

if Q then P,
not P,
therefore not Q.

A good scientific claim should be falsifiable by the denial of the consequence. A bad scientific claim is one were there is no definable consequence where, if false, would prove the scientific claim is also false.

However, Q is not proven true by the "denial of the consequence"! Rather, Q is assumed true hypothetically. We can never prove Q is true, only potential prove it is false. The principle of falsification is a great scientific tool for avoiding poor scientific claims. If does not validate the truth of any scientific claims.

__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]