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
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