Posted by Chatterbox on August 24, 19100 at 11:00:27:

In Reply to: Hey, you were the one who took the time to point out this so-called distinction. If you cannot provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for such a distinction, then I must ask you to concede that there are none lest you become guilty of hiding behind terms, which have no meaning. posted by Bessel's Equation on August 23, 19100 at 01:59:12:

: nt

I explained the difference. Now you want something that you would regard as beign necessary and sufficient. Why don't you just answer my question above in "A bit of science history"? I don't think you will, because it shows the similarity between two discarded scientific theories, creationism and phlogiston.

Follow Ups:

• You still have not answered the question, you claimed there was a real difference between the term theory and scientific theory. Yet when pushed to try and explain what the difference is, you punt and just give examples of how the words may be used, well thanks for wasting my time. What if I were to go out of my way to insist that one not confuse the terms m and weight, yet could not provide an ytic basis for this distinction, and could only provide examples of how the two words were used by different people in different situations? One could rightly conclude that I had no right to point out a difference, if I wasn’t prepared to explain what that difference was. And as it stands you still haven’t even tried. Bessel's Equation 11:59:51 8/24/100 (0)

Post a Followup