>Justin wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
>How would you justify this claim? The "pragmatic" justification has the
>problem that it requires you to assume that the fact that induction has
>worked in the past is justification for the belief that it will work in the
>future, no?
>
Because it would have to be be a miracle if the scientific theories we use that work, and cohere so nicely, weren't even approximately true. Note that this isn't a justification of a method like induction, except insofar as science uses the "will work in the future" assumption. I'm talking ahout the truth of the theories, not the jsutification of a method. The approximate truth of the theories is the best explanation of why they work. What's your alternative?
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com