[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: List User-related request
John Conway writes:
Of course, it's all got to do with what you mean by "truth" or "*the*
truth", but I think the line that science is not about finding truth is an
odd one, and certainly not a necessary part of falsificationism.
This could quickly turn into a philosphical debate that has little (if
anything) to do with dinosaurs.
Ultimately, of course, there is no such thing as 'truth' as far as proof
goes. It's an absolute concept that can never be proven absolutely (even a
99.999% likelihood is still not absolute enough). The best science can come
up with are 'facts', which are thought (at the time) to be close enough to
the truth (ie. the absolute state of affairs) to be workable. Of course,
yesterdays fact can become tomorrows fiction very easily (and the day after
that, the erroneously labeled fiction can become fact again).
To call a highly likely fact 'truth' requires a leap of faith in order to
turn that 99.999% probability (or more likely less) into a 100% certainty.
Thus I can see how religion (that regularly makes leaps of faith) can be
said to be more concerned with 'truth' (an absolute concept) than science,
which has to make do with highly changable 'facts'.
Of course, concepts in themselves are not real entities, and thus
definitions like 'truth' and 'fact' will always change - making this entire
post somewhat pointless. :)
GIS / Archaeologist http://heretichides.soffiles.com
Melbourne, Australia http://www.geocities.com/dannsdinosaurs