I think I'll cut in on this Hegelian pas de deux.
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Justin Schwartz wrote:
> Lenin once said that Marxism is all-powerful because it is true. That
> contains the basic insight: science is superior to nonscientific approaches
> for explaining and manipulating our world because it is (approximately)
> true. And we know it is true because it works. You can't change lead into
> gold through alchemy, but you can (though very expensively) through nuclear
> chemistry.
I understand Justin's claim here, but I can't help but wonder why he makes it. The usefulness of a theory is not tantamount to its truth. As one of my fav philosophers (Nietzsche) said, perhaps what science provides us are useful fictions. --An example: the two sphere representation of the universe (earth one sphere, night sky second sphere) allows us to successfully circumnavigate the globe. It is clearly useful. It works. Is it true?
In any case, what's the point of this philosophical bantering about science being true? It seems to me like a quasi-theological article of faith that is only reasonable if you already accept the idea that scientific practice leads to the Truth.
Can't we just say scientific practice often works? That's what matters. In practical terms, it makes absolutely no difference whether science is a set of convenient, useful fictions or an accurate mapping of the structure of reality. Planes still fly and TVs still work in either case.
Miles