🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>In article <1d9tejINNq6p@chnews.intel.com>, bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>>>>Science is truth, and truth is science. They are one and the same. 

Anything else is fraud, or engineering :-).

In article <1dchkqINNt4k@hpsdlss3.sdd.hp.com> johno@sdd.hp.com (John Ongtooguk) writes:
>In article <1992Nov06.003459.120859@zeus.calpoly.edu>, mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino)) writes:
>>You have to treat science as an approximation.
>>When it changes it more closely approximates the truth.
>
>I'll agree with that. Science is more of a falsifier than deliverer of 
>truth and after enough "is, is not" the truth may become evident, or at
>least accepted as such. 

Balderdash.

Science may rationally improve its methods in order to more
accurately determine the efficacy of its models.  This does
not imply in any way that the presenters of the previous models
were making false claims, unless in the course of presenting
the models they lied.

In article <1992Nov6.020049.6292@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Ba
ez) writes:
>>  If the truth is always changing then what is it after it changes ?
>
>"Error."

Precisely.

Or not, as the case must always be.

Science, when presented properly, admits its faults to examination
and discovery; it makes claims only about the logical deductions
calculated and the experiments conducted, and those claims are
only that the results are as they appear.

Scientific numbers come with error-bars and descriptions of
the method by which they were collected, in order to
document the methodology for further study and refinement.

Theories come with descriptions of the paradigms in which
they were deduced, allowing examination of the gaps and
false bridges in the knowledge they convey.

In contrast, religion strives to hide its fundamental faults
behind paradoxical aphorisms about faith and sin.

				--Blair
				  "Trust, but verify."
				  -Old Russian Saying