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

Hi nwr,I do agree with your assessment. I think we too often look to science as a method to discover truth, but really science is all about utility. That's one of the major reasons why we have Occam's Razor.I think there's one thing that you didn't mention, but that is implied by your post. I hope it's not far off topic to mention it, but I'll give it a shot and see what you think.I think the door swings both ways. Just like science, religious belief and faith need not be "true" or "false", "right" or "wrong". What really matters in faith is how it affects you, how it changes you, and how you live your life because of it. In other words, it is the utility of faith that really has meaning. Whether any article is actually true? It never really mattered.It's like Dumbo and his feather.In this way then, I see science and faith similar. They are both misconstrued as avenues to "truth". But all that ever really mattered was how we treat each other. The only thing that ever made "truth" matter was our own pointless, made-up ideal.Fortunately, that ideal turned out to be useful... sometimes.BenP.S. Why do I feel like this post could have been written by brennakimi?

Agreed..... however, this is completely against what fundamentalists belive.I think it's perfectly fine to say, "I think Jesus was the son of god, but even if he wasn't, his teachings are what is really important"What is the utility in using religion to try and deny reality?

I would probably say something different:"I believe Jesus was the son of god. If you must judge me, judge me on what I do, not what I believe. I am content in my belief."So I guess what I'm getting at is, we use "truth" as a method for justification and for judgement. Why did we ever think that "truth" had something to do with utility?I guess the easy answer is, that it's obvious. Only an idiot would even stop to ask such a silly question.What a logical fallacy that would be.

Sounds reasonable... although it's bad news for a lot of x-tians

Not really. Many of us have said even if everything in the Bible is but tales told around an campfire, the message is still valid.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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).

It couldn't be helped Not sure I agree with this, but I don't want to go off-topic on the off-topic discussion. Let's keep to one level of off-topic'dness at a time.

Just to reply (even though it's off-topic)... those definitely aren't the type of x-tians I was talking about. (and I know you aren't either Jar from reading many of your posts)...but back on topic: I believe that utility is very important for science....It goes back to a key point: Science is not about belief. New anti-biotics will work on you whether you believe in evolution or not. We can still grow genetically engineered crops whether you believe in evolution or not. etc.