(May 20, 2016 at 11:52 am)robvalue Wrote: Such a statement could be prefaced by, "It appears reasonable to conclude that..."
Science isn't about absolute certainty, it's about obtaining models and information which are as accurate as possible, beyond reasonable doubt.
And indeed, putting it into practice quickly shows its wisdom. When people claim to know things but have no evidence, they come a cropper. Or rather, it's not useful to anyone else if it can't be demonstrated.
I'm not entirely sure how "empirically" is being used here, but in abstract systems propositions can be true without needing any reference to reality. They need only conform to the rules of the system.
I agree with a lot of what you say here. It seems like you don't agree with the original proposition, as stated. My question is directed more at the epistemology of the original proposition than it is as the teleology or aim of science. Is the epistemology represented in the original proposition (even if we add your suggested clause) merely supposed (assumed)? Or does it derive from some empirical investigation itself?
