>The thing is, hypotheses can never be proven; they
>can only be supported.
The view expressed above amounts to a contemporary religion. It is
philosophy of science at best; it is certainly not science. While it's
easy to list tens, indeed hundreds of papers by and about Karl Popper (not
to mention Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, et al.), such listings, and such
arbitrary, unproven declarations as the above, do not amount to rational
evidence, much less proof.
Do we really have to believe, on the strength of Saint Popper's claims,
that the heliocentric hypothesis is not proven and "can never be proven,"
that on the contrary it's "only supported"? Must we really believe it's
"unproven" that DNA contains the genetic material? Do we really have to
regard it as only "supported," not proven, that atoms exist? If so, then
this is a case of philosophic prejudice overwhelming empirical reality.
edregis at aol.com