Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!ll-xn!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!myers From: myers@tybalt.caltech.edu (Bob Myers) Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: Do philosophers need defending? Message-ID: <3341@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> Date: Sat, 25-Jul-87 15:13:17 EDT Article-I.D.: cit-vax.3341 Posted: Sat Jul 25 15:13:17 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 26-Jul-87 01:55:22 EDT References: <3219@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> <825@klipper.cs.vu.nl> <3227@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> Sender: news@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu Reply-To: myers@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Bob Myers) Distribution: world Organization: California Institute of Technology Lines: 29 Summary: Keywords: In article <3227@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> rjf@ukc.ac.uk (Robin Faichney) writes: >In article <825@klipper.cs.vu.nl> biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) writes: > >>Now I would wish more people dug into the philosophical basis >>of that methodology, so that they would become a little less confident in >>yelling "it's scientifically proven!". > >Does this mean 'significantly less confident in a significant number of >cases'? If so, it seems to me obviously false. If not, why say it? Obviously false? Not to me. Seems quite likely to me, at least for non-scientists. Among scientists is a different story. But I think many non-scientists associate "scientifically proven" with Truth (capital T). Just think about the way some people will say "{Relativity, Evolution} is only a theory!", thinking that theories are not scientifically *proven*, and therefore aren't really Truth. As if that really had any relevance at all. The point is that scientific proof is not absolute, but it is often taken as absolute truth. The nature of *scientific* truth is not well understood (in my experience) by most non-scientists. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Myers myers@tybalt.caltech.edu ...seismo!tybalt.caltech.edu!myers