Re: Science and knowledge

[William T Goodall]

On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 06:08  am, Dan Minette wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: Science and knowledge

The purpose of science is not to help us understand reality; it is 
not
about the truth.  Indeed, one of my favorite statements about science
is
"the most important development in the history of science is when it
was
decided that it wasn't about the truth."
I would argue that most scientists believe that their models are about
reality. Truth is a somewhat trickier >notion. It implies finality 
while
science is always more tentative.

But, if this is true, then why did this statement achieve general
acceptance among the professional scientists on sci.physics?  There 
are a
lot of different scientists with a lot of different viewpoints, who all
agreed that science was about making models concerning observation.  
It had
nothing to say about the validity of observation.

<snip>
Thinking about this, its probably because we hang with different types 
of
scientists.
The overwhelming majority of scientists are *not* physicists.

<snip>

Now, it is also true that few scientists believe that observations have
nothing to do with reality. Most idealists, for example, think there 
is a
correlation between observation and reality.  And, idealists do have a
respected place among physicists: Wheeler was one.
Perhaps you should start using 'physicist' instead of 'scientist' in 
your posts to avoid overgeneralising.

Certainly most of the scientists I have known are realists who wouldn't 
know what philosophy was if they stubbed their toe on it...

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Those who study history are doomed to repeat it.

_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l