>At least from a scientific point of view, 'Truth' is an elusive concept, and is not a very useful concept. Humans are prone to state a hypothesis or theory, look around for all the 'facts' to support it, and tend to ignore disconfirming evidence. However, this is weak science. A stronger approach is to state the hypothesis, then let the community present facts that attempt to falsify the hypothesis. If the hypothesis can withstand a lot of these attacks, it does not prove the hypothesis is 'true' (because something may still come along that falsifies it), but it gives the community more 'faith' that the hypothesis is strong. I'll leave it to all of you to decide if this analysis applies to the present debate :).
>
>Pete

'Truth' == "truth" -> .F. ;-)