Contemporary scientists no longer regard truth as an absolute: every
proposition can be assigned a probability factor for its ability to predict the
behavior of the universe accurately. Some propositions predict with a high degree
of reliability, and we tend to confuse this with classical "truth." Newton's
gravitational system described the behavior of the universe so accurately that
in the 19th century it was difficult to conceive that it represents only a
first approximation. But then came Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which
predicted the phenomena of the universe still more accurately. If Relativity is not
true because it is a theory, try to convince the souls that departed Hiroshima
in 1945.
An interesting question would be when the entry for "theory" was entered
in the Longman Dictionary of the English Language. Do you really think that
scores of books by scientists on how scientists think could be superseded by
one source, written by some self appointed authority in one obscure book that
Guido has discovered? Perhaps the take-home lesson is that Taxonomists do not
think like scientists, or at least they do not read outside of their very
narrow interests.
There is a new theory of the universe, which scores of physicists are
working on, that it consists of nothing but loops of vibrating energy called
"strings." If this theory succeeds in explaining the universe to a greater degree
of certainty than previous "theories," it would greatly revise our
perceptions of what the universe is all about.
The concept of Absolute Truth, rejected by contemporary scientists but
adhered to by theologizes, accounts for why they have so much difficulty
communicating with one another. But we have strayed even further from consideration
of whether carbon dioxide can be used to stimulate orchid growth.
Bert Pressman
_______________________________________________
the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
