From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 111d6b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public From: docdwarf@clark.net () Subject: Re: Philosophers Date: 1998/02/06 Message-ID: <6bfbg6$r68@clarknet.clark.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 322652126 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit References: <67et6o$dql@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <6bco4k$1or@periodic.eng.umd.edu> <34DA489E.6226@erols.com> <6bf9b7$cf8$1@bvbsd2.kc.bv.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <6bf9b7$cf8$1@bvbsd2.kc.bv.com>, dogmat wrote: >The Goobers wrote in message <34DA489E.6226@erols.com>... > >>For a 'simple' science... say, biology, it might be argued that the >>'truth' is empirically verified in the laboratory through mechanisms >>which, when independently implemented, generate reproducible results. >>('See? The crew in Bombay did it, too, and *they* got one with two >>heads! Now that we've settled that let's all go out for a beer.') >> >>For a 'not-so-simple' science... astrophysics or quantum mechanics, the >>'big-big-big' or 'tiny-tiny-tiny' sciences... 'truth' lies more in the >>generating of equations to describe phenomena. > > >Very shaky definition of "truth", even with the quotation marks. That is why the ''s were used... 'quid est veritas' has been asked at other times and in other places, of course. >The >scientific method does not provide truth. Then permit me to ask... what *is* truth? >All it can provide are negatives, >i.e., one hypothesis or theory is definitely not true, while another simply >cannot be proven false. Oh, *come* now... the scientific method provides a bit more than that, I believe. Simple example: given a quantity of hydrochloric acid of a known concentration and a quantity of sodium hydroxide of a known concentration the scientific method has generated the formula which will tell you how much water, salt and heat has been produced *every other time* the same quantites have been combined, give or take a little (margin of error). This may not be 'truth', granted.. but are you willing to bet a week's pay that were we to do it the result would be otherwise? I agree we are told what this combining will not produce... tapioca pudding, say, or a Montgomery Ward bench-grinder... but we are also told what it pretty well likely *will* produce, based on previous experiments... reproducibility of results is the core. > At some point in any field, the theory is "good >enough" and we can move on. As Wittgenstein said, 'the bridge must not fall down'. >But you can bet that any theory will eventually >be proven "wrong", and all are incomplete. ... including *that* one? Goedel cuts both ways! DD