| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
On Jan 12, 2008, at 7:29 AM, R. McDermott wrote:
In point of fact, I consider it dangerous to drape "science" with
the mantle of
omniscience. We certainly THINK that what we develop is true, our
goal is
to approach truth as closely as possible, and, in fact, the more we
test our
explanations, the closer we are likely to come to telling the truth.
I'd go further than you. We don't at all (or at least shouldn't)
think that what we develop is "true" and that is not our goal.
Our goal is to build a mathematical model of nature that mimics
nature as closely as possible. "Truth" has nothing whatsoever to do
with it. Our models get better only in that they better mimic
nature. They might even be "true" (whatever that means), but there's
no point wasting any time trying to figure out whether they are or
aren't because it can't be done.
That doesn't mean that everything we say is inalterably true.
NOTHING that we say is likely to be "true" (unalterably or otherwise.)
The overwhelming success of science is based in its exquisite
vulnerability to evidence. ID is invulnerable to evidence and,
therefore, not science. It might be "true," but it isn't science.
John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona