[Robert Peirce]

Thus whole discussion has gone far afield of where I thought it would
go. I will make one more attempt and then I am dropping out.

I saw an opportunity to state a point that might provoke some thought
and to provide evidence. The point and the evidence were lost in a
discussion of what people thought I said and whether the evidence was
correct. The evidence was selected because it seemed to apply to audio
and that was my first mistake. Therefore I will try one last time.

The point was that no scientific theory is necessarily true. In fact,
to be a scientific theory the possibility must exist to prove it false.
It may in fact be true, in which case it never will be proved false.

I cannot cite papers or other evidence for what follows. In many cases
it comes from something I read, possibly years ago. For that reason it
could be wrong. Consequently, it should be taken for the idea, not the
details.

Let us go back thousands of years when the widely accepted theory was
that the earth was the center of the universe. This theory had been
proven both mathematically and through observation. It was a very sound
theory but it was wrong.

A better theory came along that said the earth and the other planets
revolved around the sun. This could also be explained mathematically
and through observation. The math was simpler and the observations made
more sense.

As one example, if the planets were actually around the same size as the
earth and in some cases much larger then how could they suddenly reverse
direction? Prior observation and math indicated they did but newer math
said they didn't.

So, there wasn't anything wrong with the original theory and it was
considered to be true until it wasn't. That was my only point.

I also took a shot at unscientific theories. One is that the universe
was created by a supreme being. Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't but
there is no way to prove it or to disprove it. Another theory that is
more current is that the universe is infinite. Again, there is no way
to prove it or to disprove it. We are limited by the speed of light.

If a theory is supposed to be accepted as scientific, then the
possibility of disproving it must exist. That doesn't mean it ever will
be, just that it could be.


[ Replies should move back to audio and away from cosmogony,
ontology, and theology. -- dsr ]