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.

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

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

Post a reply to this message