NavList:

   

Reply

This is a long topic.
Science CAN prove things.
Archimedes law you can test in your bath tub.
And I can bet in advance any amopunt of money that it is
correct. (Because I adhere to this "system of beliefs").

Consider also this:
The earth itself (without science) can feed about 1/5 of its present
population.
That it feeds all of it is due to the so-called "green revolution"
that happened in 1960-s. ONLY because of science.

The life expectancy of a modern European is over 70 years
(don't remember the exact no).
Would you check the average life expectancy, say of a British,
in 1900?

One conclusion is that most of us LIVE ONLY because of the advancement
of science.

But I can continue, almost indefinitely...

The highways and condoms are ONLY possible because of the progress
in chemistry.

Electricuty. Just stop and think for 10 minutes what would your life be
like
without electricity!

And electricity was possible ONLY because of science.
(Can you imagine some "other culture" like African or Pacific Islanders
inventing ANY electric devise? Like an electric iron, for example,
not speaking of the Internet.

And so on.

And this some people call " a system of beliefs like any other one"?!

A.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Bill wrote:

> > On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Mike Hannibal wrote:
> >
> >> We also need to be careful here: "Science" is simply a
> >> framework of belief, a set of rules that determine
> >> whether something is or isn't "science".
> >
> Alex responded:
>
> > Science is not just "a framework of belief".
> > It is very different from all other "frameworks of belief".
> > It is not a set of rules to determine "what is "science",
> > it is a set of rules to determine what is TRUE.
> > The ONLY set of rules available to determine this.
>
> There is another description of the scientific method I like: "Science
> cannot prove anything, it can only disprove the false."
>
> How much of what we believe we have proven to be TRUE may later become
> false? Think back to spontaneous generation of life proven to be false when
> mesh was put over a jar opening so flies could not get in.  No more maggots.
> Considered the recent suggestion that the speed of light is not a constant,
> but rather a slowly changing variable.  Add in the apparent failure of
> unification in physics without untestable (string) theories.  Pretty heavy
> implications that what we think we know is in deep trouble.
>
> A consolation is that by virtue of being out of my depth when standing in a
> puddle in a parking lot, I have so much less to unlearn and relearn. 
>
> Bill
>

   

Reply