Officially OT -> Re:My fiscal responcibility...

Peter L. Peres plp-ysDPMY98cNQDDBjDh4tngg at public.gmane.org
Tue May 25 15:09:08 UTC 2004


On Mon, 24 May 2004, John Macdonald wrote:

> There are known limits on science and the degree to which
> it can be complete and/or perfectly accurate.  That does
> not make the quest to explain, or to test the quality of
> an explanation pointless.
>
> As an analogy:
>
>     With sophistry and hair-splitting, you can show
>     that almost any statement is not fully correct.
>     That neither shows that all statements are false,
>     nor does it mean that there is no point in trying to
>     tell the truth.

Correct. You can, however, decrease the signal/noise ratio by contributing
a worthless analysis to the body of known facts. But, you are working in
the direction desired by nature, since while you contribute this you
contribute to the increase of entropy of the universe ;-) ;-) (just
kidding).

I am not in a mood for philosophy, but I do consider the current (?) set
of scientific 'axioms' as being the dogma that most rapidly and usefully
leads to results when properly applied. And nothing more than that. Iow,
one should not worship the monkey wrench imho. It's just a tool and it
will rust eventually.

Peter
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml





More information about the Legacy mailing list