>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]
