>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.
Never said it was. It's evidence of its truth, though.
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?
There's a sense--not Bietzsche's--in which this is so. Most, perhaps all
scientific theories, aren't strictly true, but only approximately so. That
means that strictly speaking, they're false. What Nietzsche misses is that
it's their approximate truth that makes them useful.
>
>In any case, what's the point of this philosophical bantering about
>science being true?
No more than any philosophical bantering. It's quite idle.
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.
>
I don't know what capital-t-Truth is as opposedto the usual sort, but yes, I do accept that theological idea, like most people.
>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.
We might want to know why it works. That it's approximately true is the best explanation I can think of.
jks
>
>Miles
>
>
_________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com