point that I cannot go any further and recognize it. For those other
fields, I do recognize that they are not my area, so my comments are
not necessarily valid.
One of Clarke's Laws of Science apply here, When a scientist is
speaking about something in his area of study, then what he says is
almost certain correct. When its something outside of his area, then
he's most certainly wrong.
larry
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:53:12 -0400, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 13:32 9/29/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> >I'm not sure that "we're" trying to verify that it's "true" although you may
> >be. ;^)
> >
> >
> >
> >Asking "what is truth" is a rather dead-end question that, as you're
> >pointing out, prevents any intelligent conclusions. Science really doesn't
> >deal with "truth" as it doesn't deal with many abstract topics. Science
> >deals with what "is" - can what "is" be consider "truth"? Perhaps, but that
> >question leaves science behind and lands squarely in the lap of philosophy.
>
>
> But it doesn't even have to be the TRUTH or even 100% correct. If I were
> to accept evolution as being the best possible explanation, I am doing so
> without all the information. I may be doing so through self imposed
> restrictions or natural restrictions, but I am still making that decision
> really without being able to tell someone "I really did check this
> evolution thing to the fullest and I really do believe it is the best
> possible explanation." I will even go a step further. If some undergrad
> kid told me, "yeah I took biology in college and I can tell you evolution
> is the answer" I would be willing to accept his answer but the dismiss him
> because there is little chance that he could have the depth of knowledge to
> really reach that conclusion himself. If the worlds greatest
> evolution-researcher told me that "evolution seems like the most likely
> answer b/c blah blah blah." Again, I would accept his answer but I know
> that I am doing so without really understanding his reasoning. I have
> reached a conclusion with out fully understanding the problem and or the
> answer. And this is not logical. And this I call faith.
>
> ANd for you it may not be about evolution. Larry seems well versed and he
> may in fact really be able to tell someone, "Yeah I checked it out." But
> can he say that about everything? And we aren't specifically talking about
> just evolution. We are talking about science, and what I claim is a
> similarity with religion.
> So for Larry at some point, he might be confronted with the decision to
> believe Random Scientific Theory. He might get a few concepts here and
> there but he doesn't understand all of it. But the 5 leading scientitics
> in Random Scientific Field all agree that Random Scientific Theory, while
> not perfect, is our best estimate of what might be. So Larry also agrees
> that Random Scientific Theory is a best estimate even though he doesn't
> understand the question, solution, or much at all about Random Scientific
> Field. More over, although he can if he chooses try to, he is unable to
> attempt to reproduce the results of the test because there is only one
> Random Scientific Machine on the Earth. even on the off chance that he
> would be given access to it - he doesn't know what to make of the data it
> produces.
>
> And we all will reach this point in science.
>
> A lot of people make good points. I feel I learned a lot.
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
