From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   D  writes:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I don't think that it would be possible to prove that something doesn't   
   exist, or provide evidence of such. On the other hand, existence is a   
   strange word. As Hume pointed out, you cannot conceive of anything   
   without conceiving of it existing. So to say the table exists doesn't   
   say anything more than saying I have perceived it.   
      
   I think the idea of existence comes from the idea of presence (origin:   
   'to be at hand'), and non-existence from absence (origin: to be away).   
      
   So, the idea of the external world being non-existent is pretty much   
   meaningless.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)