by Lance Kennedy (Posted Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:55 pm)
To salomed
The old principle is that you cannot prove a negative. So, you cannot prove there is no God. And you cannot prove Wifi does not cause harm.
The alternative to proving a negative is to try to demonstrate the positive. That is, to show there is a God, or that Wifi does cause harm. If you run such a test enough times, and the results are always negative, then you assume that the negative is correct.
So if the myriad tests fail to show God exists, or that Wifi causes harm, then you assume that God does not exist and Wifi does not cause harm. This is the current situation.
Of course, we all know that if God suddenly wakes up, travels down to Earth, and starts spreading plagues around, we will all say "Whoops, we wuz wrong."
In the same way, if someone conducts exactly the test that is needed, and shows Wifi causing harm, we will say the same thing.
Unless and until that happens, the scientific approach is to go with the assumption that there is no harm.
Read Main Topic
To salomed
The old principle is that you cannot prove a negative. So, you cannot prove there is no God. And you cannot prove Wifi does not cause harm.
The alternative to proving a negative is to try to demonstrate the positive. That is, to show there is a God, or that Wifi does cause harm. If you run such a test enough times, and the results are always negative, then you assume that the negative is correct.
So if the myriad tests fail to show God exists, or that Wifi causes harm, then you assume that God does not exist and Wifi does not cause harm. This is the current situation.
Of course, we all know that if God suddenly wakes up, travels down to Earth, and starts spreading plagues around, we will all say "Whoops, we wuz wrong."
In the same way, if someone conducts exactly the test that is needed, and shows Wifi causing harm, we will say the same thing.
Unless and until that happens, the scientific approach is to go with the assumption that there is no harm.
Read Main Topic