To Mega Therion wrote:

What I meant by 'interacting with our environment' was a bit broader than simply technological progress, though this is of course an important part. The point was that scientific theories help us make sense of our experience, predict what will happen in certain situations and so on. Well, that's a minor issue. What I would like to know is what you mean by the 'nature of the universe'? I ask this because these kind of questions usually turn out to be pseudoquestions.

And I would like to know what you mean by 'certain'? If you mean some sort of absolutely established, infalible knowledge such a thing doesn't exist, so I agree with you to that extent. But science is a method of arriving at plausible theories; and since these are all that we have I would say that science retains its epistemically privileged status.

And as for evidentialism, I guess it would depend on what you treat by evidence. I would say that the fact that a certain theory fulfils certain desiderata (accordance with our experience, predictive power, parsimony, yada yada yada) is evidence for that theory. I don't think I need to prove the methodology as well; it's obvious it works.

Look, you have some good points against dogmatists, foundationalists and so on, but you need to stop frothing at the mouth.

ciceronianus wrote:


Are you seriously claiming that science is no different than religion? I suspect not. But, If not, we must consider just what it is you are saying.

If you don't maintain that science is no different than religion, you must make a distinction between the two. It is that distinction that is significant, obviously. The distinction is that which makes it clear how science differs from religion.

In the real world, proof is in consequences. Once we have proved that X, what need is there to prove we have proved that X? Seems a bit silly, does it not?