From: Gerhard Kessell-Haak (gerhard_kessell-haak@mail.tait.co.nz)
Date: Tue Aug 25 1998 - 16:30:51 MDT
>Often I do this with people who doesn't quite believe that science
>holds all the answers.
Personally, I don't think science does hold all the answers - it only holds
all the * provably* true answers. If we make the (bold) assumption that
the Universe is the embodiment of a formal system, then there will be
truths which are not provably correct, but true nonetheless.
I've tended to imagine science as the formulation of a set of sentences
within this system which are then proved or disproved. As such, it is
consequently limited to things than can be proved or disproved, but
obviously leaves out that which is true, but can not be proved.
However, anything which is true, but cannot be proved within the
system, is also probably quite useless (from an engineering or
application point of view). For example, it is possible that dowsing does
work (i.e. the behaviour of the rod is effected by a body of water below
it) - but only at random points in time, and under random variable
conditions. It is therefore a useless art, as the conditions necessary for
it to function can never be replicated.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:30 MST