NavList:

   

Reply

An example for Alexandre:

In the past there have been all sorts of models of the cosmos proposed. One of 
them was that of the familiar (to us) celestial sphere. Later on it was 
replaced by better knowledge leading to our present ideas. However regardless 
of "Truth" the celestial sphere model remains a useful one for our purposes.

An irony came home to me when I read that some scientists think that if we 
could travel away from Earth in a straight line far enough we might arrive 
back here again - so if there is some "Truth" there, a version of the 
celestial spere may indeed have validity. As another model.

"Truth", bless its little soul (!), remains elusive ...



> Mike Hannibal  wrote:
>
> Hi Alexandre,
>
> I'll try to avoid the labels 
>
> I think that you mistake my point: I agree violently
> with you about the value that science has delivered.
> Yes life expectancy increased by about 35 years during
> the course of last century. Yes we understand the
> mechanisms of disease in a way we would not otherwise,
> as we recognise all sorts of other material - DNA and
> molecular genetics, quantum physics...
>
> None of that is at question. I however, to use a label
> for myself, am not an absolutist. I believe that
> science is a framework that provides tremendous value
> for us. It is a useful and effective framework of
> rules and beliefs.
>
> I do not therefore wish to argue aginst the theory of
> gravitation....a theory is after all an explanation
> for a phenomenon that an observer describes. In this
> case the theory, the explanation, fits very well to
> the observed phenomenon, it has utility.
>
> In other cicumstances that may not be so. In other
> circumstances an alternative framework of explanation
> may operate with greater utility.
>
> We should always have our eyes open to this
> possibility.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Mike

   

Reply