[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: hypotheses, science 'n' stuff



<Despite suggestions to the contrary, we cannot "prove" that diseases are
caused by the things we think cause them. We can set up tests that are not
disproven. We can build up such a large, robust and complex body of data
that the hypothesis is compelling and treat the disease following this.>

Could this be generalized as a statement that 'all proofs in any science are
equally indirect' or would that be overstating?
If there is no qualitative difference between experiment (direct) and
inference (indirect), if there is no model unarguable result (a 'fact') to
be approached by using inference then don't we have to agree that:
 >This means that in justifying our belief in any methodology, we must
necessarily enter a state of infinite regress, constantly justifying our
belief in one thing with
reference to a more fundamental thing, or make a leap of faith (I believe in
logic, so there!). A leap of faith is a leap of faith whether the landing
area is logic, maths, or god, so all approaches to knowledge must be
indefensible.>
per HP Lavers.
This is an even broader expansion of the just-so story, and I agree it
belies the scientific results we rely on, as you noted earlier in your
posting ('...philosophers... rely wholly on the results of science whenever
they try to do
anything in their lives like travel or get medical care, etc.')
Show what happens when you allow in metaphysics!