Inference and its role in NS (General)

by romansh ⌂ @, Saturday, January 15, 2011, 18:32 (4870 days ago) @ dhw

David
I think you misunderstand what Matt/xeno and perhaps what I are trying to say.-Take Newton's laws - we know them to be fundamentally wrong. They don't explain quantum phenomena and some macro objects i large gravitational fields - eg Mercury's orbit around the sun. But here on Earth, Newton's laws remain a really good approximation for our day daily lives.-That's point one, point two science is a process not an end point. This is NOT a weakness but a huge strength. I would argue any agnostic should understand. Whether they do or not is another matter. Just because science discards certain theories, eg luminiferous aether, when new evidence comes along, is an example of science not being dognmatic. (Scientists are not immune to being dogmatic).-So in short I think Matt is right in his assessment, but I might have chosen different words.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum