(April 25, 2015 at 6:23 pm)Hatshepsut Wrote:(October 28, 2013 at 8:51 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: A scientific fact is often misunderstood or rather ambiguously defined by most non-specialists. It does not mean that science has demonstrated what the truth is nor that what science says is the way reality is. A scientific fact is a hypothesis...corroborated to a sufficiently high level...if the exact mechanism by which the phenomenon occurs is unknown or implausible, it is considered appropriate to require greater significance.
I like your take on scientific truths and dare say you're way more current on monism vs. dualism than I am. As well as filiing one's own posts for retrieval 2 years later. My computer's so cluttered I'm thinking I might be less prone to reject the null hypothesis inappropriately were my brain replaced by a Turing machine. Paul & Pat Churchlands' "luminous room" in Scientific American (Jan. 1990) is fascinating yet I'm unsure it overcomes John Searle's maxim that syntax cannot generate semantics, a thing nearly all linguists accept.
I'm unfamiliar with that, so I'll have to get back to you. Are you familiar with the 'Korean Room' thought experiment?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation...Zx4U23oBDE