DSK wrote:

Then, a long time ago a man named Brown was watching paint chips dance
around under a microscope, and it occured to him that one way to
explain it would be water molecules bouncing off the paint chips in
random vectors. This explanation is of course just another example of
the human mind seeking to find patterns where none exist,

It could just as easily be an example of the human mind imposing a notion of
randomness where none exists.


... but it fits
nicely in with a number of other such explanations... none of these
explanations can be proven false and together they seem to explain &
predict (to a large extent) behavior... does that make it true?

Nope. Empirical generalisations yield no truths - unless you redefine
'truth' to fit (and are willing to deal with the notion of 'truer' truths
than the redefinition accounts for).


What would Aristotle say?

No idea.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk