BrianW
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 1999
- Messages
- 2,563
- Real Name
- Brian
Yeah, Steeve is amazing. He understood the logical fallacy of proving a negative and maintained his position on much firmer ground. He completely blindsided me and changed the direction of the debate on at least two occasions. I mean, Jeepers!, he actually had us debating the ratio of all we know to all that can be known! How much more high-minded can you get?
Ultimately, as I recall, the debate boiled down to the scientist saying that a phenomenon is not a phenomenon until it is observed, and Steeve saying that phenomena exist whether we observe them or not. For the purpose of applying the Scientific Method, the scientist is correct. (After all, why try to explain something you can't even observe?) But in the real Universe, outside the scope of science, I ultimately had to agree with Steeve. I learned a lot from him. I miss him, too.
Ultimately, as I recall, the debate boiled down to the scientist saying that a phenomenon is not a phenomenon until it is observed, and Steeve saying that phenomena exist whether we observe them or not. For the purpose of applying the Scientific Method, the scientist is correct. (After all, why try to explain something you can't even observe?) But in the real Universe, outside the scope of science, I ultimately had to agree with Steeve. I learned a lot from him. I miss him, too.