|
|
Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?
Silveroak (ag-oak@amber.nvt.net)
17 Aug 1996 16:18:18 GMT
Bryant (mycol1@unm.edu) wrote:
: In article <smryanDw5uC5.M1n@netcom.com>, @#$%!?! <smryan@netcom.com> wrote:
: >Bryant said:
: >: 2. Scientific methods better "approximate" reality than non-hypothesis
: >: testing ways of knowing.
:
: >How do you measure better or poorer approximations without reference to
: >some absolute truth?
:
: Nice question. I think that varying degrees of confidence, never
: reaching the Absolutely Positive stage, can be achieved by testing the
: predictive power of a model/hypothesis. If your model doesn't help you
: predict how a system (or components of a system) work, it deserves
: relatively little of your confidence.
So what you are effectively saying is that the scientific methods of
observing the universe better approximate the reality of the universe according
to the scientific method of determining that reality.
Of course the Christian model of the universe also approximates the
universe better according to the Christian method of determining that reality.
Theirs happens to be centered around the opening of a book that is
supposed to contain all answers, your focuses upon a method of observation,
modeling, approximation, and elimination, while discaring certain points of
view from consideration as untestable (aka: Occam's razor)
So how do you demonstrate to all points of view that your model works
better? Obviously the bibliologists aren't going to accept scientific
standards of evidence...
:
|