RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I read this and was wondering what ye think of it. It seems, and I don't disagree that much, that Clark is trying to say that all scientific reasoning is fallacious, especially when it is set up as affirming the consequent.
If Hypothesis H is true, then Experiment E will produce results R.
Experiment E does produce results R.
Therefore, Hypothesis H is true.
What do you think?
If Hypothesis H is true, then Experiment E will produce results R.
Experiment E does produce results R.
Therefore, Hypothesis H is true.
What do you think?