> Do you see that this contradicts your argument? We use Newton's laws
> not because they are the immutable, absolutely correct laws of motion
> but simply because--they work. (Score one for the pragmatists!)
I'd think that they'd have to be close approximations to work.
> I agree that change in science is not random and arbitrary, and I don't
> know anyone who makes that argument (straw man?). --I don't see the
> philosophical challenge here: it's progress because scientists discard
> old ideas on the basis of new research, measurement techniques, and
> theories.
If the new ideas aren't closer to reality, then we're not making progress.
> --If you want to say this progress allows us to more and
> more closely approximate "the way things really are", you're engaging
> in wild speculation: all we have is human understanding, so we cannot
> compare our human understanding to how things really are to
> verify that we're more and more closely matching reality with
> our scientific models.
Sure we can. Why do you think scientists make predictions?
-- Luke