--- On Sun, 23/3/08, Eric Dean <ecdean99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Quine & Popper, if I understand their position right, > think that things which could only be proved false at the > end of eternity don't qualify as scientific hypotheses. This hits it, I think, at least from P's POV. Problems with "point in time" and "there exists", be they as they may, do not - afaicansee - impact on this fairly simple point (btw, "end of time" might be preferable to "end of eternity" if we have our pedantic hats on - after all, it is surely more problematic to speak of the "end of eternity" than it is to speak of a "point in time"). Donal ___________________________________________________________ Rise to the challenge for Sport Relief with Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/ ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html