|
|
Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?
Silveroak (ag-oak@amber.nvt.net)
19 Aug 1996 15:08:08 GMT
Bryant (mycol1@unm.edu) wrote:
: In article <4v4rca$n68@cobalt.nvt.net>, Silveroak <ag-oak@amber.nvt.net> wrote:
:
: > 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.
:
: Nope. I'm saying that hypothesis testing allows the creation of models
: which are more predictive than non-hypothesis testing derived models.
:
More predictive in what way? Many Bibliologists claim the same thing
about their bible- that the vast majority of it's predictions have come true.
Meanwhile science *does* fail to predict the weather through
meteorology, trends in society through sociology, and keeps changing it's
mind on subjects like the shape of the cosmos and the structure of an atom.
It's "predictive" ability only stretches as far as what it has observed
in the past, and it predicts that given the same circumstances and mechanisms
the same thing will happen- there hasn't been a serious philosopher in history
who would disagree with that.
As for the predictions of scientific models, the first point is that
the preictions frequently do not come true- which is why expiriments are
performe to check repeatability. The second is that the models are just that-
models. They are subject to change when any conflicting information arises,
and they do not necessarilly represent the truth about reality, just a usefull
way of thinking about it.
To many minds this is an advantagous way to examine reality, but the
fact remains that it is only "better" at approximating reality from a
scientific point of view, and to insist upon it's universal application is just
as silly as the Christian fundamentalists who quote the bible to prove that it
is the absolute truth.
|