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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 111d6b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid111d6b,public X-Google-Thread: 10d15b,328622178ec8b832 X-Google-Attributes: gid10d15b,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public From: docdwarf@clark.net () Subject: Re: Philosophers Date: 1998/02/06 Message-ID: <6bfntm$k7j@clarknet.clark.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 322704578 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit References: <67et6o$dql@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <6bf9b7$cf8$1@bvbsd2.kc.bv.com> <6bfbg6$r68@clarknet.clark.net> <6bfgkl$qn1$1@bvbsd2.kc.bv.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.cobol,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <6bfgkl$qn1$1@bvbsd2.kc.bv.com>, dogmat wrote: >ocdwarf@clark.net wrote in message <6bfbg6$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. Blessed is he who expects nothing, he will rarely be disappointed. >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. Hmmmm... this, obviously, is confusing. Pirsig 'rejects' the question of truth... does that mean he rejects truth, the question or his ability to deal with the question? As for substituting 'quality' for 'truth' (or not substituting but making 'truth' a subset of 'quality')... bah. Call it camembert, call it cheddar... the question remains, what is cheese? > >> >>>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. Unless you are positing that truth must be proven by theory then I fail to see the relevance of this observation... it also opens up the nasty can of worms of 'what constitutes a proof?' >All we have is a simplified model of atoms and reactions which happens >to match our experience "well enough to date". And this is not 'truth' because... ? >Naturally, I would not bet my paycheck against the theory. Damnation... and I was hoping to eat at Sizzler's tonight on your nickel, too! >Its just that theory isn't "truth", whatever >that is. Ding ding ding... I *must* call you on this; if you cannot say what 'truth' is then I have to ask how you determine what it is not... can't have one without the other, last I looked. >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. When tomorrow comes one deals with tomorrow... as for today, Be Here Now (and bet a paycheck or two while you're at it). > >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. Ummmm.... I would question this 'theory which is also a fact' thingie. Yes, we can notice the change in finch-beaks or moth-spots over a few generations on the Galapagos or in London... but to extrapolate that from amoeba to orangutan is a wee bit of a leap (and a few Geological Ages longer, too) >So it depends whether or not we want to argue >practical stuff and move on, or play semantics. One does not rule out the other, I believe, as I attempted to demonstrate with an acid, a base, some water, salt and heat. > >>>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*? The 'that' is 'any theory will eventually be proven 'wrong', and all are incomplete'... what happens when *that* theory is proven wrong/incomplete? Similarly: 'No generalisation is worth a damn, including this one' or 'Never believe anything you read on the UseNet, including this statement' or the old chestnut 'I speak nothing but lies and I am lieing right now'. ... or, to refer back to Persig, 'All things are relative... and I can say this *absolutely*!' DD