H cmd n btwrst pr l mñn tmrpn crc d m cs.

jarfr oiausdf jjhqewr nkkzxv lam tweet indremo orly wtfx.

So, what's the observation that could ''reject'' the idea that science works by collecting evidence?

.. and, in particular, god is not falsifiable.

And that was precisely my point; your original question asked the OP to test God as an hypothesis, which you recognize is absurd.

God is an axiom, exactly like the idea that science can work at all. You can collect evidence supporting them, but not disproving them.

So, what am I missing? How is it rational to prove the validity of science through science?

What? You are assuming science and religion are the same kinds of things.

Not exactly. I'm assuming "the belief that science can describe an objective, external world" and "the belief that an objective, external world exists at all" are the same kind of "the belief that God exist".

True, science is a method to study the external world; but you can also see religion as a method to study emotions and human relations. You can use religion to make assertions about reality in the same way that you can use science to make moral judgements - which is, by stretching the method outside of their area of validity.

Being beliefs, neither can be proven nor disproven merely by logic alone; beliefs are ultimately based on emotion, not reason. In that level, yes, they're the same kind of thing. I may believe that science is a better method to learn about existence, and I may even believe that it's incompatible with religion, but I can't prove it scientifically; that would be an infinite recursion.

Solipsism. We're talking metaphysics here, you're not even playing the right game.

Do you realize that science relies on logic, logic relies on sets of axioms, and axioms can't be disproved by empirical evidence, only by inconsistencies in the formal system? The existence of $DEITY$ can't be proven nor disproven by empiric data, because it's a logically consistent system. How would you disprove that the COBE prediction is proof of the Will of God?

(FYI I'm an atheist, but in my day I did my duty learning a bit about philosophy of science. I know science's limits, and while I know where my axioms lay, I recognize what happens when you change your axioms starting from a different belief system).

How did you test that hypothesis?

The same way you tested the hypothesis that empirical methods can discover regular, universal laws; and with equivalent results.

The only thing stopping people from using LaTeX for business documents is the lack of template libraries

Which proves my point. Building new LaTeX templates from scratch is nightmarishly difficult, so "just having someone to write them up" is something only 0.001 companies in the world could afford.

Meanwhile, having a graphics designer to build a few templates in MS Word is quite straightforward, so the in-house locked-down template approach is much more practical.

Next thing you know, they'll be battling with the stigma and guilt.

I agree to some degree. HTML is not good for doing exact visuals, but it's still great for delivering content to a myriad of different platforms and devices.

The only error is in trying to make it pixel-perfect.

Learning how to make professional looking documents that communicate well to people is a valuable skill

so teach them LaTeX then?

Oh yeah? How do you create professional business looking documents with LaTeX, ones that don't look like thesis dissertations?

I for one welcome our ninja-trained helicopter-piloting rat underlords.

That's because HTML is a semantic language, not a visual language. A designer would work against the languages purpose, and only serve for limited purposes. (There are *lots* of HTML designers that work "as well as Win32" for limited purposes, btw.)