RE: virus: Theory....

Wade T.Smith (
Tue, 18 Nov 97 19:15:50 -0500

>Why must something be falsifiable?

[Forgive the ramblingness here, or don't.... A non-trivial knee injury
has me full of pain-killers, and I may be even more disjoint than

If your experiment shows your theory to be incorrect, you move on. It is
not that something _must_ be falsifiable, but that an experiment requires
the design feature of falsifiability.
No <shaman> would ever engage in such an experiment, which altogether
explains the fact James Randi is still in possession of 1.1 million in
usanian dollars.

I am also convinced no <shaman> could design such an experiment. This is
the crux of my argument with <shamanism>.

At the same time, I do not dismiss the activities (perhaps products is a
better term...) of the <shaman> as being immune from this scientific
scrutiny, or unworthy of investigation.

But the economic justification of the <shaman> is whittled away by such
discoveries. To which I say, good riddance, because some real market
value instantly ensues.

And the scientist _does_ move on.

Reasons for things is postscript. Causes for things is science. Yes,
Robin, science came first. But I seem to be equating curiosity with
science more than most people do, as well as thinking it is more like
language than anything else. I don't know, that is still simmering away.
It ain't soup yet.

Wade T. Smith | "There ain't nothin' you | shouldn't do to a god." |
******* *******