: I must confess my finite mind is still puzzled. I fail to see the "logic" behind the fact that proving something is false is better than not being able to prove it at all. Or am I missing something here?Let's play a game. Think of a number between 5 and 10. Write it on a piece of paper and don't show me.
(Let's say you picked 7, which is the one most people do.)
Is it 6?
No.
Is it 9?
No.
Is it 8?
No.
By proving that what you chose isn't 6, 8 or 9, you strengthen the chances of it being 7; you simply eliminate the provably false.
Even if you can't say what it *is*, saying what it *isn't* is helpful when describing the observed Universe. That's falsification.
Proving that an axiom is false is better for a theory than not being able to prove it at all because you can then eliminate it from your enquiries.
When trying to solve a murder, the detective tries to eliminate as many impossible suspects as possible; because this elimination gives the detective a better chance of finding out the guilty party. That's falsification.
: It may be a more "accurate" method of employing the scientific method, which is merely an organized systematic study of a problem. But how does being able to prove evolution inherently prove that it must be true and not proving God physically exists mean that my position is less tenable?
If you can *disprove* evolution, then it is open to questioning; just as the detective can question an alibi, the scientist can test a theory.
If the alibi stands up to all questions, then it's likely that it approaches the truth; it may not be *the* truth, but it is close. If the alibi is full of holes, then the alibi fails; the detective can prove that the alibi is false.
Similarly the theory of evolution. You can design experiments to test and disprove evolution; none has yet managed to disprove it, thus the case for evolution being close to the truth is strengthened.
If the alibi says something no-one but the suspect can confirm, then the alibi is suspect; if a theory invokes something that can only be proved by assuming the theory to be true, then it is logically suspect.
Another analogy;
Take two children; one in a group (A) and one alone (B); take a broken window.
The child in a group (A) can say "I was here all the time; ask X, Y and Z (members of the group); they'll tell you I was here all the time"; you can test this alibi by questioning X, Y and Z.
The child on its own (B) can only say "I was by myself but I didn't break the window".
A's alibi may be right or wrong; but it is supported by external evidence (the statements of X, Y and Z); furthermore, you can spot lying in A, X, Y and Z's statements by comparing them and seeing if they are consistent.
B's alibi only relies upon itself; it is either true or false and you cannot back it up with any evidence, since no-one else saw B.
Evolution is like A; it might not be the truth, but you can test it; you can gather supporting or conflicting evidence and weigh it in the balance.
Creationism is like B; you either accept it or you don't; you can't provide any supporting evidence outside of B; it is therefore self-referential, not verifiable.
I hope I've made this clear enough; I really can't state it much more baldly without resorting to small words in bright colours...
Gideon
None.
