hey ericp, a simple test for your logic

If it is not possible to make any observations for the theory, it is not possible to make them for the antithesis too. Consequently, the antithesis is also true....So, in this borderline case, both the thesis as the antithesis are true.

There is one thing missing in this evaluation. That is that as they

*cannot* both be true, one contradicting the other, one of your premises

*must* be false. This is a standard test of logic.

If it is not possible to make any observations for the theory, all possible observations necessarily concur with it, and therefore, the theory must be considered to be true.

This is your false premise: if you can make no observations you cannot conclude whether they would concur or invalidate the theory.

You have assumed that they "necessarily concur with it" rather than show how this

*must* be the case. Observations could invalidate the theory just as easily as concur with it.

The proper conclusion then is that you do not know.

Science if full of strange results in borderline cases. What's so new about that?

There is a lot we don't know.

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand

*by* our ability to understand

**R**ebel **A**merican **Z**en **D**eist

... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...

to share.

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •