> Reed wrote:
> > What if you begin with a different set of "guesses"? I think you are
> > making the common arguement that eventually any "True" science
> > will arrive at (more or less) the same principles of being...these
> > being the "Natural Laws" we are endevoring to discover.
>
> Hmmm. I'm reminded of Choas theory and the idea of "attractors"... are
> you saying that if we start with a different guess, we may end up at a
> different attractor in "objective" space, and thus a different
> "scientific" theory?
Wow! Great analogy, Eric!
> Would it not be more straight forward to just *define* truth to be a
> property of a model; a higher truth value corresponding to a "better"
> representation of "objective reality" (determined by intersubjecive
> agreement)?
But you're starting assumption is that the "best" model is the one closest
to objective reality. Take one more step back. Challenge that primary
assumption. What if the "best" model is defined in some other way?
Without a necessary regard to its relation with objective reality. What
new attractor will you cicle around? Is that a "better" (more useful)
place to go to solve some problems?
"Too much sanity is madness, but the maddest of all is to see life as it
is and not as it should be." -Cervantes
-Prof. Tim