You seem to be disputing that science tells us that some explanations are more likely to be correct than others. Is that your position?
That depends on what kind of probability you are talking about, inductive or physical? In
Message 157, I linked to the paper: The Concept of Inductive Probability. For the things we're discussing, science can get us to inductive probability but not physical probability.
Getting this deep into inductive logic to the point of that philisophical discussion is not something that interests me.
No. If we rely on what is subjectively considered ridiculous we get nowhere. What if space-time curvature is subjectively deemed ridiculous by some? What if competing explanations are both deemed sensible (e.g. the Big Bang Vs the Steady State universe for example)? How do we decide which explanation is more likely to be correct and which is not? I'll tell you - We use the scientific method.
Which implies that the scientific method has lead you away from the gnomes, but they're unfalsifyable...
Using the inductive probability to claim a physical probability is illogical.
qs=CSA liklihood of correctness does not logically follow from science.
Straggler writes:
So according to science all possible explanations are equally likley to be correct.
CS writes:
No. If we don't have the liklihoods of correctness then how can we say they're equal?
What other option is there?
Not knowing the liklihoods.
We both agree that certainty is rationally unjustifiable. So if we also eliminate likelihood that means we can can never consider any one explanation as more correct than any other on the basis of scientific investigation. But the whole point of science is to weed out wrong explanations and promote explanations that can rationally be considered correct. No?
I don't think so. It doesn't matter if its actually correct or not, it matters if it works and is reliable. You're assuming that working reliably means that its correct but science doesn't say this about it.
™ Version 4.2
