|
|
Re: Male Virginity EXPLANATION
Patrick J Crowe (v187ef4y@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu)
21 Oct 1995 09:18 EDT
In article <46ag4c$mvo@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, nakis@ix.netcom.com
(Michael Nakis ) writes...
[deletions]
> If this rupture occurs to a
>sufficiently large number of men to preclude accidents, then as far as
>biology is concerned, it is by definition an incident of defloration,
>that is, loss of virginity. (Well, ok, I guess it is obvious that I am
>extending the definition here so as to cover males.)
Extended the definition of what? The possibility of male virginity? If
so, you're only extending it for yourself.
[more deletions]
>Well, very nice paradigm, but you should have guessed my answer:
>Millions of archaeologists and anthropologists as well as other
>scientists all over the world strongly disagree with you, David.
>Theories, in any science, physics included, are created by people who
>meticulously collect all possible evidence, however minuscule that may
>be, and then do nothing but educated guesswork.
[remainder deleted]
Thousands of us would disagree with you, Michael, since I strongly doubt
there are millions to do so (BTW, I've deleted sci.archaeology from this
as it is not a propos to that group and was only there because of your
error in posting). Theories/hypotheses, to be scientific, must be
potentially falsifiable. That is why matters such as the existance
or nonexistance of deities are not in the scientific domain - neither
side can be shown to be false. There is in science something beyond
educated guesswork.
That having been said, how is your explanation of circumcision falsifiable?
-Pat Crowe, SUNY at Buffalo
|