"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:05:54 +0100, "Gareth Magennis"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
>>> "Ethan Winer" wrote ...
>>>>> Hippie ****s like you have even fewer answers, and produce _zero_
>>>>> working technology.
>>>>
>>>> LOL, that's a great come-back. It kills me when "believers" diss real
>>>> science, but of course they have nothing of their own to show.
>>>
>>> On the other hand we have a rich history of "real science"
>>> that seemed just as valid in its time, but in retrospect is
>>> embarassing at best. And I wouldn't bet my life that 100%
>>> of everything we think of as "real science" today will stand
>>> the test of time and further research.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Agreed, and I think the biggest mistake made is to think that Science
>>deals
>>with "facts". It does not, it merely puts forward hypotheses that fit
>>certain observations. A particularly good hypothesis (theory) will also
>>predict certain outcomes that may later be observed to be as predicted.
>>These theories are only designed to be "true" until an observation
>>condtradicts it, or it is updated by a better version, they are absolutely
>>NOT describing things that are actually true or are known facts. There
>>are
>>no known facts at all. (except perhaps in Mathematics, which precisely
>>defines the facts it is proving)
>>
>
> Even maths doesn't deal in facts. All proofs rest on axioms - which
> are pretty good assumptions about how the world works, but they are
> just assumptions. So a proof will really read "Such and such is
> proven, assuming that...".
>



The bit about Maths I meant was that you can say that the statement "1 + 1 =
2" is true, it IS a fact because we have defined all the rules that make
this a fact. You cannot, with the same certainty, say that this chair I am
sitting on really exists, or exists in the way that I think it does. All
science is based on assumptions of what we think reality is.. Any of these
assumptions are subject to change or revision at some point, should they be
shown to be incorrect. (For instance, Quantum Physics can now show the same
particle to be in 2 different places at the same time). Our "knowledge" of
the world is not knowledge, but Opinion. It's a good game though.



Gareth.