[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 8/28/03
Time: 11:27:44 PM
Remote Name: 68.74.29.133
John,
I wasn't wrong. You read my post wrong.
The subject was “proof.” I was talking about my observations as a child that led me to one conclusion and the progression of evidence that was required to prove to me that my conclusion was wrong.
I was taught in elementary school that observers knew the world was round long before Columbus, but until someone made the trip – or bumped into a an uncharted continent on the way – they couldn’t prove it to the masses. Looking at the globe showed me how all of the evidence I had that the globe was a good model of reality fit together without Magellan. It narrowed the rational alternatives to one.
I didn’t think it was necessary to explain how much I know about history and astronomy today. The point was to give a simple example of how evidence alone might prove nothing but enough evidence correctly configured can prove some things if you look at ALL of it systematically without jumping to conclusions. --Jasper