Can science avoid the possibility of unavoidable error?
Imagine two possible worlds: one has a history of nature with only natural process, while the other includes both natural-appearing and miraculous-appearing events. When we ask, “Which type of world do we live in?”, we hope our science will help us, not hinder us, in our search for truth. But in one of the two possible worlds, a science with rigid-MN — which implies that we already know (with certainty, beyond any doubt) what kind of world we live in — must inevitably reach some wrong conclusions. By contrast, in either world a science with testable-MN — which allows both MN and non-MN modes of thinking, by starting with an MN-assumption but not demanding an MN-conclusion — will allow, although it cannot guarantee, correct conclusions.
Related Questions
- Can I reconfigure my Windows client to trust the bogus root to avoid error messages and enable logon to services like Passport?
- What can pregnant women do to avoid the possibility of trans-placental (mother to unborn child) transmission of WNV?
- Do the Reds have any plans to limit (Ken) Griffeys playing time next spring to avoid the possibility of injury?
