(February 15, 2013 at 3:27 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(February 15, 2013 at 3:17 pm)Brian37 Wrote: That's why scientists test and review. It allows science to adapt to new and better data.
Yes, but it does not in any way shape or form inform us as to whether or not we are actually in fact, or even capable of, accurately perceiving reality. That's what you're missing.
(February 15, 2013 at 3:17 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Again, not knowing the future does not mean we cant use a trash can when we come across bad data, nor does it mean we should assume the future just because we dont know the future.
More unwarranted reading between the lines, I think. I don't recall anyone suggesting otherwise in this thread.
Quote:Yes, but it does not in any way shape or form inform us as to whether or not we are actually in fact, or even capable of, accurately perceiving reality. That's what you're missing.
No I am not missing it. I think you are over conflating not me.
It still amounts to you saying "technically we don't know".
But there is a a lot we do know and we have the best tool so far.
So if we are not in disagreement that scientific method is our best tool so far and we both agree testing and review is the best way to gauge reality, "technically" still amounts to "ifs and buts were candy and nuts".
There is lots we don't know. Yea, I am sure. And a lot we will discover. So?