Mark,
I don't know of any respectable scientist who would claim
that any particular theory is "true" without qualifications.
So the following point is trivially obvious:
> To accept a theory is to believe that it captures the data.
> That's a very different thing from believing that the theory
> is "true".
On the other hand, it is quite reasonable to believe that there
is a world outside our subjective experience, which serves as
the ultimate criterion against which our theories are tested.
(And by the way, that belief would be justified even if we are
all inside some giant simulator that is run by some very clever
beings in one of their amusement parks. In such a case, our
ultimate criterion would be the structure of their simulator.)
Although no one can ever know whether any particular statement
is true without qualifications, scientists and engineers are
frequently justified in believing that a particular observation
is within a determinable margin of error x from what would be
measured by any superior technology that might ever be invented
at any time in the indefinite future.
For example, a biologist is justified in telling a creationist
that evolution is known to be true beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Of course, there are an enormous number of details about evolution
that are still unknown. The hypothesis of "intelligent design",
which claims that a superior being (either God or the guys that
run the amusement park) helped things along, cannot be ruled out.
But the fact that all known life forms on earth evolved, in some
way, from one or more primitive organisms is beyond doubt.
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 31 2006 - 11:53:49 MET DST