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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: 111d6b,cf04ca12585a8d55 X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,cf04ca12585a8d55 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,cf04ca12585a8d55 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,cf04ca12585a8d55 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,cf04ca12585a8d55 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,cf04ca12585a8d55 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,cf04ca12585a8d55 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: "dogmat" Subject: Re: Philosophers Date: 1998/02/06 Message-ID: <6bfgkl$qn1$1@bvbsd2.kc.bv.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 322678201 References: <67et6o$dql@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <6bco4k$1or@periodic.eng.umd.edu> <34DA489E.6226@erols.com> <6bf9b7$cf8$1@bvbsd2.kc.bv.com> <6bfbg6$r68@clarknet.clark.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Organization: Richard MacDonald 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: ocdwarf@clark.net wrote in message <6bfbg6$r68@clarknet.clark.net>... >>The scientific method does not provide truth. > >Then permit me to ask... what *is* truth? You are permitted to ask. Just don't expect a completely satisfactory answer that doesn't lead to other questions. The best thing I've read on the subject is "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert Pirsig. He tackles the question: "Is truth relative or absolute?" Basically, he rejects the question and defines "quality" instead. Quality is absolute, and truth is a relative view of quality. Now what is quality? Still a tough question (and a great book to deal with it), but at least the relative/absolute problem has gone away. > >>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? Point taken, however there still is no theory which proves the truth of this. All we have is a simplified model of atoms and reactions which happens to match our experience "well enough to date". Naturally, I would not bet my paycheck against the theory. Its just that theory isn't "truth", whatever that is. And just because the theory works well enough, doesn't mean that tomorrow a better theory will not come along that models the data better, explains the physics better, and proves the old theory wrong. OTOH, I have argued your point very strongly against the oxymoronic "Scientific Creationists". Yes, evolution is "just a theory". But it is a theory that is also fact. So it depends whether or not we want to argue practical stuff and move on, or play semantics. >>But you can bet that any theory will eventually >>be proven "wrong", and all are incomplete. > >... including *that* one? Goedel cuts both ways! Which one are you referring to by *that*? Godel's theory? I've forgotten what Godel's theory had to say about Godel's theory. Yes, its "true" but incomplete?