Intelligent tree growth

I have a tree in my back yard. I planted it maybe 15 years ago as a seedling at around 12 inches high. It is now 20 feet in height.There is a biological theory of how trees grow. Let's refer to it as "The Biological Theory of Trees", or BToT for short.BTOT happens to be quite useful. Much can be predicted about tree growth. Planters, orchardists, etc, can use BTOT to guide them in ways to control tree growth so as to manage fruit picking and other kinds of harvesting.From what I have seen, BTOT explains my tree quite well. The tree grows pretty much as BTOT suggests. I use my knowledge of BTOT when pruning, and that works well too.If I am completely honest, I have to admit that BTOT could be wrong. I have never actually seen the tree grow. If have at various times noticed that it was bigger than it had previously been. But any actual growth happens at too slow a speed for observation.So maybe trees don't grow at all. Maybe every now and then, at a time when nobody is watching, the tree simply poofs out of existence, and a new slightly larger tree poofs into existence to replace it. Let's refer to that as the Theory of Intelligent Tree Growth, or TITG.Let's suppose that TITG turns out to be true, and BTOT turns out to be false. Maybe I had a convincing experience, including a supernatural revelation, where I learned of the truth of TITG.What should I then do?My contention is that I should continue to use BTOT. I should perhaps become an anti-realist with respect to BTOT. That is, I should say that BTOT is not what really happens. Nevertheless it is a sound scientific theory for pragmatic reasons. It predicts tree growth. It allow control of tree growth by orchardists, horticulturalists and others. By contrast, although TITG is shown to be true, it is of no practical use. It gives me no ability at prediction or control.Comments anybody?[Note: This is a reaction to randman's skeptical view of evolution, such as he is expressing in various posts in A Whale of a Tale. It is my contention that such skepticism should lead to an anti-realist attitude toward ToE, rather than to an outright rejection. The intention is to discuss what makes for a good scientific theory. ToE is not adopted because it is true. Rather, it is adopted because if its empirical usefulness. Even if found untrue, it would continue to be used until there is a replacement theory that is at least as useful.]

Antirealism

The following is taken from Page not found | UCL Philosophy - UCL — University College London: (Suggest: "Is it Science") {This topic's source is message 1 of the Proposed New Topic version. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-03-2006 09:44 PM

Post 2, and we are already drifting off-topic Yes, I agree Ben. Unfortunately, quite a few theologians don't agree, but there are probably quite a few who do agree, too. I see "truth" as having originated as a qualifier for sentences, and needed in communication and logic. It became a made-up ideal when we tried to make "truth" an entity in its own right (when we reified it).