Using an absolute to attempt and prove a point will only serve in disproving your own argument cch harped on. ❋ Unknown (2010)
Of course, no one questioned that story because no one has a political or emotional stake in disproving atrocities by insurgents. ❋ Unknown (2007)
Swank plays a former Christian missionary who lost her faith after her family was tragically killed, and has since become a world renowned expert in disproving religious phenomena. ❋ Unknown (2006)
In that book, as is often forgotten, he tried to vindicate deism against atheism, and certainly succeeded in disproving Burke's crude contention that this was a distinction without a difference. ❋ Unknown (2004)
We’ve done exactly as much research on disproving that my head is the center of the universe as we have in disproving human intelligence is the result of natural forces. ❋ Unknown (2008)
Longhorn, it goes back to the idea of disproving that all crows are black. ❋ Unknown (2005)
But more aptly that would be "disproving" anyway, passing a test gives either a falsification or a quantifiable uncertainty but no "proof". ❋ Unknown (2010)
I do not know of any article "disproving" gravity, so maybe you could give us a link to the article in question? ❋ Unknown (2010)
Wouldn't a scientist actually be interested in "disproving" a conflicting analysis. ❋ Unknown (2009)
As for Gould 'disproving' evolution, all the man seeks to do is to replace false data with real data, which is why he's quoting against the use of the drawings in school text. ❋ Unknown (2009)
[When 2] people are arguing, (considering that since science-even social science- was, is, and will forever be, self correcting) but supposing that neither of the arguing parties wants to lose their argument ( I mean wtf, what rational person wants to lose an argument:)), one of 3 things will happen:
1) when I have [google proved] you, I.e. I proved that your argument is correct, I have automatically google disproved myself
2) when I have google disproved you, I did something else-for what reason is irrelevant- I have google proved myself, proven my argument to be correct.
3) you cannot philosophically prove, with a [philosophical] P, who wins or loses said argument, since an argument will only stand [the test] of time until a counter argument-one that also stands the test of time- is introduced as a new, self corrected, argument. ❋ Sexydimma (2016)
