good science?

EdRegis edregis at aol.com
Fri Apr 28 07:32:33 EST 1995


> If you can separate "philosophy of science" from "science, " 
>there must be something wrong with either the 
>philosophy or the science. 
I don't get this at all, and you present no explanation of it (much less
evidence for it), so I don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking
about in that sentence.


>The examples you quote are cases where scientific inquiry 
>has led to results that are almost certain (99.999%, for example). 

Give me *one* good reason for thiknking that in *any* of the three cases I
mention, the results are only "almost" certain rather than 100 percent
certain.  

>I must agree with "Saint" Popper that scientific 
>knowledge is never 100% sure, 

Actually, you don't have to agree with him.  You can think again about the
whole matter and wind up changing your mind.  Anyone who agrees with him
in light of the vast number of thigns that science surely does know as
matters of certainty, is practicing theology of science, not science.  

Ed
edregis at aol,.com

but that it approaches that ideal in 
many cases by only an infinitimely small fraction of 1%. What other human 
endeavor can you say that about?? Therefore, here is to Science!!!



More information about the Virology mailing list