Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [RELIGION] creation myths

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:

> But I really feel that you have ducked the main question.
>
> How is it that we really rigorously know that the scientific method is 
> going to work?


Work?  Work in order to accomplish what end?

It is not possible to prove things about the real world.  Proof exists 
only in human-generated domains of logic and mathematics.  Science can't 
prove things in that sense, but neither can anything else.  I'm not saying 
that you have to have "faith" in anything.  What I'm saying is that there 
are matters of degree in "knowing" or "believing," and these degrees of 
knowing/believing are based on *evidence.* Science is all about evidence 
-- how to design studies or experiments to collect better evidence, how to 
evaluate evidence, how to contrast the evidentiary support for various 
theories, etc.  I would use the term "scientific" to refer to any approach 
to systematic collection of evidence or any valid method for using 
evidence to compare hypotheses or theories.

Science works by eliminating ideas that are contradicted by strong 
evidence.  It moves us forward by clearing away the bad ideas.

Science does not work by proving anything to an absolute certainty.

It seems to me that alternatives to science are all nonsense.  One example 
is to simply believe something because you like it and to ignore evidence. 
That approach is called "faith."  Faith doesn't move us forward in 
knowledge or technology because it is fixed and it cannot adapt in the 
face of evidence.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion