Re: Science Truth ?

Scott Badger (
Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:42:52 -0500

>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

Science pretty much says that _truth_ is a matter of predictive and external
validity. If we discover a relationship that is replicable and thus
predictable, we tentatively call it truth-like.

>The fact that
>evolutionary theory works does not make it true, and certainly does
>not make creationist theory false.

The fact that evolutionary theory is coherent, elegant, and parsimonious
makes it more truth-like than creationism IMO.

>It's even possible an
>inferior intelligence set the algorithm running that in turn created
>us. I would even argue it's possible that we were created the other
>day (or next week) and yet we cannot know. But could we ever
>communicate with our creator? Again, it's a possibility.

Anything's possible I suppose, but why make such outlandish speculations
when more reasonable ones are available?

S. Badger