From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   D  writes:   
      
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   Solipsism doesn't mean discussion is meaningless, as stories are   
   meaningful, even thought they might not be true.   
      
      
   >>>>> 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.   
      
   Why is there a burden of proof? This isn't a court of law. And you can't   
   prove a negative anyway. And scientific theories are generally not   
   proven to be true, they are merely not proven to be false.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)