Arlo -
I thought the tautology is that scientists are trying to converge on
Truth, but Truth is defined as what scientists converge on.
I would break the cycle by arguing that scientists are not trying to
converge on anything, at least not if they are doing it right. They
would expect that minus experimental error and statistical variation
the results of their experiments would reflect some single coherent
model of reality, even one that we currently have no conception of,
but they are not supposed to and possibly can't assume such.
Huzzah! Well said...
I haven't researched this, but I suspect the historical record of
scientific advance would show a sort of "punctuated equilibrium" with
each new paradigm shift defining the "punctuation".
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
