Much of modern science derives its thinking from philosopher Karl Popper. Popper taught that scientific theories can never be proven to be true, they can only be falsified. He even contended that there is no such thing as absolute truth in science, and he disagreed with empirical science altogether. Sound familiar? This is ultimately where Jack DeBaun gets his junk version of science.

But does science really not prove anything? Let’s look at a very practical example for the answer: Does Jack DeBaun actually exist? If so, how can we know that he exists?

Well, it is an empirically demonstrable scientific fact that someone calling himself Jack DeBaun has been writing many letters to the editor of the Daily Bee. The proof is in the absolute, undeniable fact that those letters have made it to publication, which is easily documented by simply looking at those newspapers.

There are also people who know Jack personally and can testify to his actual, real, and undeniable existence. Past employers, friends, enemies, relatives—all can vouch for the scientifically verifiable fact that Jack (or someone calling himself by that name) actually does exist. I ask the reader, could Jack’s existence be provisional? Tentative? Could he exist and maybe not exist at the same time?

Of one thing we can be certain, there is as much junk philosophy out there as there is junk science. Personally, I prefer the common sense philosophy of Thomas Reid to the ridiculously absurd nonsense of Karl Popper.

MONTE HEIL

Sagle