From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Sun Sep 01 2002 - 21:59:56 MDT
On Sunday 01 September 2002 12:05, Dan Fabulich wrote:
> Charles Hixson wrote:
> > This doesn't actually work. Our approach is simpler, but doesn't
> > disagree with his approach where they both make predictions. And it's
> > in the testable predictions* that the truth** of the approach lays.
> > The mental models used to make the physical predictions are just that,
> ....
>
> Do you think we'd be more rational/objective about our scientific theories
> if we stopped using "truth" words about them? If so, then you've captured
> an interesting perspective; a language which teaches us something about
> ourselves. Do you think we should have that language instead of our
> current language? What do you think we'd have to gain? What do you think
> we'd lose in terms of scientific passion if scientists never pursued The
> Truth but only pursued utility?
>
> -Dan
>
> -unless you love someone-
> -nothing else makes any sense-
> e.e. cummings
Perhaps. But that may also just be a short-cut for when we don't want to
think carefully about things. Truth, by indicating a absolute certainty,
stops thought, and with limited abilities to process, that can be important.
I just don't believe that it's ever literally true. (Is that a paradox?)
If you look at published scientific papers, you will see that they are quite
chary with the use of words like "true". They talk about theories, and
experimental results, but avoid claiming truth. And that's because they know
that they may feel certain, but this doesn't imply truth. They know what
they've observed, and what they thought about it. (Also how they felt about
it, but that also doesn't show up in scientific papers very often.) Another
thing they know is why they performed the experiment. What their goal was
(which may have been *changed*, but not falsified, but the experimental
result).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:38 MST