>>concept of success in science = ability to explain
>>and predict reality , period.
>>Okay, let's work with that.
>>>example of predicting reality = weatherprognosis
>>>do we agree?
>>Not really. Too complicated. Your brain is probably just chemistry and
>physics. However, even if we knew *all* of the chemistry and physics, we
>wouldn't necessarily be able to model your brain effectively.
well, i'm boldly assuming that 'nature' somehow got things working
quite well, what's there preventing us from doing a reasonable
this 'somehow' seems to be neuroscience+behavioral sciences,
which are increasingly joining forces, recognizing each other
by EEG ERP correlation techniques.
>>if we still agree, then we can connect
>>a successfull science with 'successfull weatherprognosis'
>>This assumes success is all-or-nothing.
of course not.
>In fact, we get better forecasts now
>than we did when I was a kid, so I'm assuming that part of science has