From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Wed, 12 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
      
   >>   
   >> Hmm.  Perhaps yes, perhaps no, perhaps to some extent.   
   >>   
   >> When you say the word 'wrong' some times there are those   
   >> who instantly start mentioning how 'science' says one thing   
   >> one minute and another and opposite one the next minute.   
   >   
   > 'Science says' is a packed phrase. The product of science is a model of   
   > reality as we currently (think) we know it. The model changes over time,   
   > and that is to be expected, as our knowlege is not perfect or   
   > complete. If we knew everything already we would not need to do   
   > science. So, by 'wrong' I meant that Newton's model, although it works   
   > in its own context, doesn't work in other contexts.   
      
   Note that science is a method, and what you are describing (one thing, then   
   another and so on) is the way it works, but over time, it converges on the   
   truth   
   (TM) (however you define it).   
      
   One definition and way to think about it is as a tool that enables us to make   
   predictions in the real world. Over time we expand the areas where we can make   
   predictions, and the predictions become more and more accurate.   
      
   Science can be viewed as the process where we constantly refine our prediction   
   making capabilities, defined by if they work or not.   
      
   That does not require the assumption of correspondence with something in the   
   real world. If you're interested, have a look at constructive empiricism, or   
   why   
   not instrumentalism! =)   
      
   >> Again, what is your definition of 'existence'?  Or is 'science' a faith   
   >> based religion?   
   >   
   > I am not sure where you are going with this. It's not such a strange   
   > idea. Does your computer exist when you are not looking at it? when   
   > nobody is looking at it? You have no way to tell directly, but you have   
   > a mental model in which it is there all the time, and that makes more   
   > sense than trying to explain why it ceased to exist and then came back   
   > into existence. So working out existence from models isn't faith based   
   > religion, people do it all the time in their heads, and science is an   
   > extension of it.   
      
   I think when it comes to the external world and existence a good starting point   
   it to touch the table in front of you, and ask yourself if that is enough   
   evidence for you that the external world exists. You can add similar evidence   
   such as the scientific method working, and property remaining in place.   
      
   Personally, that's all the evidence I need to be 100% sure of the external   
   world. In fact... there is another perspective.   
      
   I don't need any evidence at all, since I have no choice but acting in the   
   world. I am designed into the world, and can operate in it without evidence of   
   it existing. It just is.   
      
   And now turn it around...   
      
   Has anyone ever managed to present evidence to the contrary? If not, we are   
   very   
   justified in knowing that the world exists.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)