RE: On the Success of Scientific Theories
March 25, 2015 at 12:02 pm
(This post was last modified: March 25, 2015 at 12:09 pm by JuliaL.)
When offering legal argument, it is conventional to start with a list of stipulated definitions.
Presumably, this is not done in philosophical discussion because the argument would get no further than the shape of the negotiation table.
What is truth?
1) If a proposition is in agreement with reality it is true. Oops, defined it with a term to which we may or may not have access (from Vroomfondel, Works Never Started)
2) If predictions made by a proposition actually occur that proposition is true. Oops, the future hasn't happened yet.
3) If past experience (potentially non-existent if history is bunk) is consistent with a proposition, that proposition is true.
I'll go out on a limb and choose 3) today.
Science is successful because science has been successful.
So successful in fact, that it's bastard sons, engineering & economics, are on the verge of pushing us off the planet. Good times?
Alex K: I advise you to stay shallow on your LHC explanations. I try to. Otherwise I find myself prefacing each statement with "If we're not a simulation of a brain in a vat running on a cosmic computer then...."
Presumably, this is not done in philosophical discussion because the argument would get no further than the shape of the negotiation table.
What is truth?
1) If a proposition is in agreement with reality it is true. Oops, defined it with a term to which we may or may not have access (from Vroomfondel, Works Never Started)
2) If predictions made by a proposition actually occur that proposition is true. Oops, the future hasn't happened yet.
3) If past experience (potentially non-existent if history is bunk) is consistent with a proposition, that proposition is true.
I'll go out on a limb and choose 3) today.
Science is successful because science has been successful.
So successful in fact, that it's bastard sons, engineering & economics, are on the verge of pushing us off the planet. Good times?
Alex K: I advise you to stay shallow on your LHC explanations. I try to. Otherwise I find myself prefacing each statement with "If we're not a simulation of a brain in a vat running on a cosmic computer then...."
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat? 
