(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS

[Dave Lebling]

No one suggests that any scientific "proof" is the case in any absolute 
sense. "Proof" means that if you tweak the universe in a certain way, it 
responds in a particular predictable way. Scientists do this not because 
it "feels good," but because if you have building blocks of 
predictability, you can create further and deeper edifices. Eventually 
you come to the part you don't yet understand, and can attempt to move 
on. The idea that scientists do this because it "feels right" 
trivializes a lot of intense philosophical discussion about what makes 
science work. To use an ugly phrase, it is "methodological naturalism." 
That is, predictable effects flow from observed causes. If you do X, 
then Y happens.

Thus the "possible reason" is that if you understand some aspect of the 
universe, you can accurately predict its behavior. In the mundane world, 
this leads to degrees, Nobel prizes, the approbation of their peers, 
etc. In the intellectual world, this means that you know the microcode 
of the universe. The more we know of it, the less we need superstition 
and false enlightenment.

Dave L.

On 12/23/2011 1:58 PM, Lee Berman wrote:
> Why are "hypothesis testing" and "replicable results" and "mathematical modelling" so popular among
> scientists? Who decided these criteria constitute "proof"? Scientists did. And they did it for one
> basic reason. Agreement on these things make scientists feel good about what they are doing; about
> themselves and their place in the world. It just feels right to most scientists.  There is no other
> possible reason.  (is there?)