Dear Fleib, Your interpretation of what Henry stated is wrong. His first statement which is without question mark is about 'claiming the existance of phenomena without
scientific proof...', etc. This is not the same as 'believing that Higgs particles exist'. What one believes is not relevant in science otherwise we in Europe could save a huge amount of money with CMS in Cern. From his statement one can't deduce the assumption 'that everything and all phenomena can be proven scietificaly'. What he stated is that one should not CLAIM existance of whatever phenomena without scientific proof.
His second statement can be interpeted as a question because of the question mark but those are not the 'things' which can be true or fals but,say, interesting, boring, significant, senseless, etc. Ie questions are not truth functional.
Regards,
scientific proof...', etc. This is not the same as 'believing that Higgs particles exist'. What one believes is not relevant in science otherwise we in Europe could save a huge amount of money with CMS in Cern. From his statement one can't deduce the assumption 'that everything and all phenomena can be proven scietificaly'. What he stated is that one should not CLAIM existance of whatever phenomena without scientific proof.
His second statement can be interpeted as a question because of the question mark but those are not the 'things' which can be true or fals but,say, interesting, boring, significant, senseless, etc. Ie questions are not truth functional.
Regards,