<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><small>Mark P. Line wrote:</small><br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid1393.69.91.14.68.1153933546.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com">
<pre wrap=""><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" color="#3333ff">John F. Sowa wrote:
</font></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#3333ff"><font color="#33cc00">MPL<font color="#3366ff">> For science to work, theories and other models don't have
> to be things that are "true". They just have to be things that
> are _useful_ -- and that implies a purpose against which any
> scientific model must be evaluated. (Bas van Fraassen)</font>
I agree to a large extent, but I would emphasize the distinction
between engineering and pure science. The question of "truth" --
i.e., a correspondence with some reality that exists independently
of what we may think about it -- is science, but the question of
usefulness is engineering. Both are important, but we should be
clear about which goals we are pursuing in any particular project.</font>
</font></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!----><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
color="#3333ff">
I would have to disagree. I think science is defined not by a search for
truth but by use of scientific method.</font></pre>
</blockquote>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><small>Mark, may I ask, then,
what constitutes the "scientific method"? Isn't it the search for true
propositions about nature? I mean: you got questions and want to have
true answers to those questions. There are ways of obtaining those
answers that are acknowledged in some community. But what you want is
not just follow the procedures, you want the true answers.</small><br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid1393.69.91.14.68.1153933546.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com">
<pre wrap=""><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font
color="#3333ff">[T]here are
good epistemological reasons for failing to assume we'd know the "truth"
for sure when we saw it.</font>
</font></pre>
</blockquote>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><small>That's right for sure:
we might fail to know that an answer is true when we get it. But we
will want to know. Not having questions to be answered would make
sciences a childs game, playing around with elaborate toys following
rules. And, Mark: success of a theory might be a hint that it's true.<br>
<br>
Should we cross-post HOPOS?<br>
<br>
- Peter</small><br>
</font>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.peter-kuehnlein.net">http://www.peter-kuehnlein.net</a>
"There are times when a person gets carried away and talks on without thinking much. [...] After such an occasion it is best to come face to face with the truth and express it."
(Hagakure)</pre>
</body>
</html>