From: ChuckKuecker (ckuecker@mcs.net)
Date: Sat May 16 1998 - 06:40:51 MDT
At 12:17 AM 5/16/98 -0400, you wrote:
> IAN: I think that that gets to the heart of
> the matter pertaining to why truth is seen
> as an unreliable standard... my truth, their
> truth, this truth, that truth. The same sub-
> jective morass applies to utility, their
> utility, my utility, this, that...
>
<snip>
>
> I believe that we can have a scientific
> definition of truth (a one-one or maybe
> onto function, or both) that eliminates
> in one fell swoop this morass of subjec-
> tive truth, which I think is a direct
> threat to science and ethical standards
> as this leads to a "utility first" frame-
> work that leads to "anything goes."
>
Scientific truth: experiments can be devised and performed that give the
same asnwer again and again, with some statistical variances. All can agree
on the results. No opinions are needed.
Scientific truths are absolute, be they 'useful' or not.
Philosophic truth: beliefs, tenets of religions, political platforms.
Impossible to cleanly define what the 'truth' is for any but a small group
of like minded poeple.
Usefulness of this kind of truth is directly related to who you talk to..
Chuck Kuecker
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:05 MST