On 9/11/2013 4:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 10 Sep 2013, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote:

On 9/10/2013 1:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Today we know that science proves nothing about reality, but it can refute theories, and it can provides evidences for theories, but not automatically the truth.

Scientific theories are certainly not automatically the truth. But to say science "proves *nothing* about reality" is ridiculous.

It might depend what we mean by reality. If reality is defined by a model of arithmetic, then we can agree that science can prove statements having the shape: if there is a reality, then there is an infinity of prime numbers, and that might be an example.

But usually we prove propositions inside theories,

That's your Platonist dogma. You can only prove propositions inside theories by assuming some axioms from which to prove them. The scientific method is prove theories (in the original sense of test) by observation. That's how Galileo proved the moon was not a perfect celestial sphere: he observed craters on it.

and it is always a sort of bet that such theories really apply to reality.

Sure, because the axioms and the rules of inference are never certain. But when you make an empirical observation you are interacting with reality if there's any reality at all.

Brent


Science is born from doubt and never leave it.

Bruno

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to