[geocentrism] Theories v facts
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 14:18:07 +0100
I thought some of you may be interested in this e-mail I got from Richard
Dawkins some time ago before I'd heard of geocentrism.
On 22 March 2002, Dawkins sent this to me when I questioned him why evolution
was still refered to as a 'theory'. This was his reply:
Quote
"It is technically disputable in the boring sense that people have been known
to dispute it. People also dispute the fact that the world is a spinning globe.
There is a pedantic philosophical sense in which both evolution and the round
earth are theories. They are both theories supported by a gigantic quantity of
evidence that not to call them facts is perverse. If anything is a fact, these
two theories are facts."
So what will it take to make these 'theories' into indisputable facts?
Jack
Other related posts:
