>>> jkschw at hotmail.com 12/07/00 03:43PM >>>
As you know, I am a flat-headed scientific realist. I do not think that
truth is socially constructed. Warrant comes from legitimating beliefs, not
from the objects investigated. Truth may be a relation of correspondance
between scientific sentences and the things of which they are true. Warrant
isn't. It derives from the relations between the warranting beliefs that we
hops make the truth of the warranted belief more probable.
((((((((((
CB: Hey, sort of like a warrant needs probable cause to believe ? Justin , what do you make of all the jurisprudential analogies in science and philosophy of science ?
Could you elaborate on "It derives from the relations between the warranting beliefs that we hops ( hope ?) make the truth of the warranted belief more probable" ?
((((((((
Actuallly I don't think it's harder or easier to do science whatever your metaphysical position. Most experimental physicists I knwo are classical logical empiricists. Relativity physicsa re realists as a rule; quantum physicists are antirealists. It doesn't seem to matter to scientific practice what one things on this matter.
--jks
>
>Peer review is an institutional check. Scientists involved in it
>understand that the warrant of scientific findings comes from the object
>of investigation, not the act of being read.
>
>It's very difficult to do science if you believe that truth is socially
>constructed.
>--
>James Heartfield
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com