On 5/11/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But, that's all that science is. It models observations, gives predictions that can be falsified or verified, and allows us to manipulate the empirical (i.e. technology). There is no scientific way to prove that our observations are real, or that tomorrow the rules will not change. We have no evidence of that happening in the past, but it is possible that it will happen tomorrow.
To expand on that a bit... Science also depends on a notion of elegance. Look at superstring theory, for example. We have no accelerators that come close to producing the sort of energy necessary to demonstrate a basis in reality for it. However, it explains much more than any other theory, which makes it rather elegant. Still, it is good science. Much the same could be said of evolution -- we have very little direct evidence, but i is an elegant explanation of a great deal of what we see. And thus it is subject to the silly "just a theory" criticism. I believe that one can reasonably and logically turn these ideas around and make a fine argument that our only source of knowledge is art -- we accept theories that fit most beautifully with our observations about the world, then justify them experimentally. Of course, I actually believe that neither of these is true alone. Science and art complement one another. Our irrational notions of beauty and elegance guide us just as surely as our rational notions of testing and observation. To lose oneself in one or the other is to be half a person. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
