On 3/10/2017 6:49 PM, Shay wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 3/10/2017 2:19 PM, Shay wrote:
>>
>>> Let's put aside all questions of bias and any reservations about the
>>> shortcomings (and, in some areas, terrible track record) of induction. Let us
>>> accept, for the moment, "Science", not as a methodology, but as our
>>> best-available equivalent of absolute truth.
>>>
>> I won't. Science is a methodology. And any "scientist" that talks about
>> "absolute truth" is not worthy of the name. Whenever do you hear or read
>> the phrase "to the best of our knowledge"? Because that is all we can
>> say, in my opinion.
>
> "Best-available equivalent to absolute truth" vs "to the best of our knowledge."
> I think we're on the same page here.
>

Yes I think we are. I didn't realise that until the end of your post.

> I put aside the distinction between science (the methodology) and one of the
> above in order to parse the phrase "science deny-er."
>

Again I didn't get that until I was writing my reply.


> Of course, I put aside a lot more than that. I completely bypassed any arguments
> regarding the potential for corruption between "scientific results" and "what is
> presented as true 'to the best of our knowledge.'" That's where I was going with
> the "scientific" polling,

True, there is too much to go into. Unless you don't mind TL;DR ;)
But Scientists are human too and can worry about where the next project 
is coming from or they might be fundamentalists. Or as you say/imply 
they might have no morals.
Personally I prefer engineering. 'Cause if you can't hit it with a 
hammer or a shifting spanner (monkey wrench). It won't stand up. ;)


> but Thomas didn't seem interested, and applicability
> is a stronger point besides.
>

Well I misunderstood your post to start off with and English is my 
native language. (Sae te speak. :) )
We will wait until the morning to see.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message