Proving What We Already "Know"

[bennyboy]

That one appears to represent differences of scale and the limit of the human eye - for starters.  The hope - at least with any method of finding truth alike things...I think..is that while many might represent things not as they are, but as they are useful - that some of that utility might be press ganged into looking for truth alike things.  

We don't have this brain so that we can do formal logic or science - but there are some indications it can be used for that.

Okay, so let's say there's an objective-world-out-there.  It is not the world as we see it, and probably cannot be, but there is some kind of relationship between the world as we see it and something real-- for example, lions are real enough that there's utility in avoiding them, and whatever physics underlies them is consistent enough that this utility persists across time.

Would you be comfortable defining objectivity ONLY in terms of persistence of utility?  It sounds goofy, but I'd say that science is the science of identifying and working with those parameters which have the property of persistence across time, space, and perspective-- i.e. those things that we expect to be true for all tomorrows and for all observers.