From: Rev David Rice <shydavid@ktb.net>
Good day, sir.
I am the "evolutionary sciences" volunteer at The Skeptic Tank,
so I am addressing your message.
> Sir:
According to Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England,"
a lawyer does not deal in "proofs."
> Your criticism is
Science does not have as its venue "proof." Your skills as a
lawyer have not prepared you to speak authoritatively about the sciences,
because science is done the opposite way lawyering is done.
In the latter, a conclusion is reached and then the lawyer argues for that
conclusion. The scientific method, on the other hand, tentatively postulates
a hypotheis and then the scientist argues AGAINST it. This is the ONLY way
to learn what is true and how the universe works.
A lawyer will argue for a conclusion even when she or he knows it to be
false; a scientist will argue AGAINST a conclusion even if she or he
believes it to be false.
A lawyer will maintain a conclusion; a scientists' conclusion is always
tentative.
Frankly, I'm surprised that a lawyer would be telling scientists
how to do science.
One can hope you are a better lawyer than you are a scientist.
---
Shy David's House of Knowledge
From: Rev David Rice <shydavid@ktb.net>
To: <1915jor@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 06:24:13 -0700
Subject: Correction
I wrote:
> A lawyer will argue for a colclusion even when she or
The sentence should have read "A lawyer will argue for
a conclusion even when she or he knows it to be false;
a scientist will argue AGAINST a conclusion even if she
or he believes it to be true."
That is the scientific method.
---
Rev David Michael Rice
Mariner's Ministries, Dana Point
Shy David's House of Knowledge
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
To: <1915jor@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:42:00 -0700
Subject: Evolutionary Theory
> I am a lawyer, learned in proofs and evidence.
> generalized rather than specific. It seems to me that you atheist
> evolutionists have been filtering information and evidence for decades,
> and selectively ignore or distort evidence to prove preposterous
> theories...and then call it "science." I admit it must seem challenging
> to attempt to "scientifically" prove a lie...but reward comes from
> proving the truth. Open your mind and let a little truth in. It may
> change yor life.
Rev David Michael Rice
Mariner's Ministries, Dana Point
http://www.holysmoke.org/
The truth about "Psychics:"
http://holysmoke.org
> he knows it to be false; a scientist will argue
> AGAINST a conclusion even if she or he believes it to
> be false.
http://www.holysmoke.org/
The truth about "Psychics:"
http://holysmoke.org
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page.