From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Wed, 2 Apr 2025, oldernow wrote:   
      
   > On 2025-04-01, D  wrote:   
   >   
   >>>> True. It was an example of how one might deduce from the   
   >>>> behaviour of a buried corpse, so speculate that dinosaurs   
   >>>> are also remains, although fossilized.   
   >>>   
   >>> Speculation is clearly foundational in "science".   
   >>   
   >> Theory, discussion, speculation, mental tools, calculation   
   >> are all tools of science, just like experiment,   
   >> verification and falsification is.   
   >   
   > How do modeling/representation phenomena such as   
   > all that you list leapfrog from what might be called   
   > "modeling/representation realm" to interact sufficiently   
   > directly with an alleged "objective/real world" to say with   
   > assurance that their results were indeed derived from said   
   > allege "objective/real world"?   
      
   Easy, by confirmation from the senses. I see a table in front of me. That   
   is ample evidence to me, that it exists.   
      
   Note that doubting the evidence of you senses is self-refuting, since it   
   leads to solipsism. Solipsism means there is no ground for truth, and   
   discussion is meaningless. Yet, the fact that you discuss means that   
   regardless of that you propose to doubt the external world and the   
   evidence of your senses, at some level you do not, since you keep debating   
   and arguing.   
      
   >>>> No, because we explain how leaves grow on trees through   
   >>>> biology and chemistry, so god is not necessary.   
   >>>   
   >>> Do you equate "we explain" with "we know"?   
   >>   
   >> Ahh... moving on to the theory of truth! A very interesting   
   >> subject.   
   >>   
   >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth#Substantive   
   >>   
   >> I lean towards the pragmatic theory of truth, but depending   
   >> on the subject, I also see some merit in the consensus   
   >> theory of truth.   
   >>   
   >> The pragmatic theory I think goes very well with empirical   
   >> evidence, as in, does science allow us to predict events   
   >> happening in the physical world, which can be detected.   
   >   
   > Again, how can "empircal evidence" be obtained by tools   
   > clearly located firmly in a non-empirical context?   
   >   
   > (I mean, apart from believing they can be, of course....).   
      
   See above. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that sense   
   evidence is not a source of knowledge.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)