Harv,

you gave no criteria what differentiates success and failure.

I did! I call it logic. How many times do I have to repeat it? If it's logical, it's true. If it's illogical, then I have no idea what you are talking about.

Case in point: Big Bang theory relies on the concept of 'space expansion'. That makes no sense at all. You can't expand space anymore than you can expand the number 4. But I already know you disagree, you do believe it's actually possible to expand the number 4.

I replied with the importance of 'success derived from methods' as giving us confidence on the truthfulness of theories

"Success derived from methods" is not a logical argument, it's propaganda. If I tell you the right way to get from New York to Boston is by driving through Seattle, and you see nothing wrong with my argument just because you really got to Boston, that can only mean one thing: you don't own a map.

But of course you disagree.

I'm sorry Aurino, I just believe that you and Dick muddle the questions you are addressing and therefore muddle the answers. Skipping back and forth between ontological and epistemological issues seems to be where both of you are confused (I see this same thing happening between both of you).

I'm not worried about this comment as you said you "believe". That means you don't know.

I'm sorry if my answer is too frank

Frankness is good, it prevents misunderstanding. I'm too confident of my position to be bothered by criticism.

Oops, I did it again.

See y'a

Aurino