>> The purpose of science is not to help us understand reality; it is not > about the truth. Indeed, one of my favorite statements about science is > "the most important development in the history of science is when it was > decided that it wasn't about the truth."
I would argue that most scientists believe that their models are about reality. Truth is a somewhat trickier notion. It implies finality while science is always more tentative. > > Indeed, you find in a working group of scientists, a wide variety of > metaphysical positions. To first order, they are all perfectly consistant > with science. I've noticed that it is very easy for scientists to happily > argue metaphysics over coffee and then drop their differences when they > actually work. My own experience is that scientists do not worry much about metaphysics. They believe or assume that the world that they study is real. The notion of modelling and predicting of what scientists do but most would find it difficult to work if they did not believe in the reality of the things they were studying > > The reason for this is that there is a general acceptance of the > proposition that science is not about knowing what is real and true. I would argue that most scientists (not philosophers) would disagree with this. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
