REAL SCIENCE DOES NOT ACCEPT FALSE KNOWLEDGE (was Re: Science
Prof. Gomes (gomes@dpx.cnen.gov.br)
Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:32:01 -0200 (GRNLNDDT)
At 13:28 29/04/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Ian Goddard wrote:
>
>> IAN: If science seeks knowledge, does
>> science seek true or false knowledge?
>
>As I explained knowledge is neither defined as true or false, the only
>attribute of knowledge is that it produces more knowledge and/or
>information. For instance, creationism is not knowledge since it does
>not create any new knowledge or information (it nicely snuffs it) and
>it is neither provably true nor false. Science uses an evolutionary
>model because it creates new knowledge/information (and therefore is
>knowledge) and it is neither provably true nor false. The fact that
>evolutionary theory works does not make it true, and certainly does
>not make creationist theory false.
>
...............
>
>--Wax
Sorry, but >>> What is not REAL KNOWLEGDE IS NOT ACCEPTED by SCIENCE !!!!
1) Real knowlegde only has some sense if it IS about a truth. Knowlegde
shoud not be confused with quantity of (not necessarily validated)
informations, or divagations... or even conclusions based on a set of false
concepts... For me, it is not real knowlegde...
For me, the existence of such doubts nowadays is also one of BAD
consequences of RELIGIOUS FAITH over minds...
2) It is being forgotten that Science always tries to prove what concludes...
3) And about models, they must be VALIDATED in its dominium, to be
scientifically accepted...
Gomes.