Mark P. Line wrote:
>John F. Sowa wrote:
>
>>MPL> For science to work, theories and other models don't have
>> > to be things that are "true". They just have to be things that
>> > are _useful_ -- and that implies a purpose against which any
>> > scientific model must be evaluated. (Bas van Fraassen)
>>
>>I agree to a large extent, but I would emphasize the distinction
>>between engineering and pure science. The question of "truth" --
>>i.e., a correspondence with some reality that exists independently
>>of what we may think about it -- is science, but the question of
>>usefulness is engineering. Both are important, but we should be
>>clear about which goals we are pursuing in any particular project.
>>
>
>I would have to disagree. I think science is defined not by a search for
>truth but by use of scientific method.
>
Mark, may I ask, then, what constitutes the "scientific method"? Isn't
it the search for true propositions about nature? I mean: you got
questions and want to have true answers to those questions. There are
ways of obtaining those answers that are acknowledged in some community.
But what you want is not just follow the procedures, you want the true
answers.
>[T]here are
>good epistemological reasons for failing to assume we'd know the "truth"
>for sure when we saw it.
>
That's right for sure: we might fail to know that an answer is true when
we get it. But we will want to know. Not having questions to be answered
would make sciences a childs game, playing around with elaborate toys
following rules. And, Mark: success of a theory might be a hint that
it's true.
Should we cross-post HOPOS?
- Peter
-- http://www.peter-kuehnlein.net"There are times when a person gets carried away and talks on without thinking much. [...] After such an occasion it is best to come face to face with the truth and express it." (Hagakure)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 26 2006 - 20:57:41 MET DST