tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post8674049618312211884..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: The rationality of sciencegcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-32656643773273704962015-12-13T08:05:00.831-05:002015-12-13T08:05:00.831-05:00Scientific theories are just ways of coping with t...Scientific theories are just ways of coping with the world and have nothing to do with "truth."gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-56246729528908320592015-12-13T08:04:10.909-05:002015-12-13T08:04:10.909-05:00No: a rational, loving Creator solves the problem ...No: a rational, loving Creator solves the problem of why we should expect induction to continue to work.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-52184830245914938112015-12-12T23:51:20.829-05:002015-12-12T23:51:20.829-05:00"You write as if you have never encountered H..."You write as if you have never encountered Hume's critique of induction!"<br /><br />Hume's critique should apply even under the "book of God" assumption though, right?Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-42440706839174138892015-12-12T23:50:27.189-05:002015-12-12T23:50:27.189-05:00What is the "instrumentalist" case?What is the "instrumentalist" case?Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-85463809616785224932015-12-12T01:05:19.736-05:002015-12-12T01:05:19.736-05:00"In much the way Copernicus explained why he ..."In much the way Copernicus explained why he was right, that the math worked cleanly..."<br /><br />Well, Copernicus didn't have much math, and he still needed epicycles. (It wasn't until Kepler that they were eliminated.) What he had was a *vision* of a more rational ordering of the solar system. And as a Catholic priest, he would have had no doubt from whence that rationality arose.<br /><br />"But, it's all a hypothesis...given this, that appears to work. "<br /><br />You write as if you have never encountered Hume's critique of induction!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-49995603059795235132015-12-11T22:46:19.734-05:002015-12-11T22:46:19.734-05:00In much the way Copernicus explained why he was ri...In much the way Copernicus explained why he was right, that the math worked cleanly, science can claim rationality. That which is rational conforms in some way to laws of mathematics. If not, we either have the science wrong, the math wrong or we lack the tools to understand the math and hence label the science either hypothetical or "not proved." Like Galileo, it moves should be sufficient. But, it's all a hypothesis...given this, that appears to work. Need to be a bit utilitarian here, or just wander on down the old rabbit hole and start wearing your underpants on your head with pencils in your nose. Crusader AXE versus the carnivorous, dwarf duckshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00101915102493942112noreply@blogger.com