On Sat, 27 Mar 1999, Carol & David wrote:

> Carol:
> > > I disagree.  If something has not been proven to exist, that most
> > > certainly DOES mean that it might not exist.  What is being found
> > > might be just an experimental artifact of some sort.  The Perth Group
> > > seems, from what I've read, to be well aware of that possibility.
>
> Lucia:
> > well of course, it means it might not exist. and yes they are aware of,
> > and strongly suspect/suggest, that possibility. Still, scientifically,
> > just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>
> Carol:
> Of course not.  But you said "That doesn't mean it might not exist"
> which is something else entirely.

To my mind, these two statements are the same:

1. just because you can't prove something that "doesn't mean it might not
exist"

2. just because you can't prove something "doesn't mean it doesn't exist"

we're in the twilight zone. not sure how I got here...
Lucia