Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Durnavich
I agree that speaking of scientific theory as a model is a means of acknowledging that science can always improve. I quibble with the notion that way out in the distance there is "the actual" that science falls short of. When your theory fails, there is no "actual" sitting remotely at a distance.
|
How do you know that there is "no actual" at a distance, actually?
I've decided to focus on this point, in the hope that it will clarify your position for me. I'm not sure that I quite understand what your position is--what it is that you're criticising. A lot of what you say sound like things I agree with, and have argued for many times too in these forums. Yet other things you say sound a lot like the pop-postmodernist "anything-goes" epistemological talk of ID proponents. But then you say you are
not saying "do whatever you want, anything goes". And I get confused...
My model of your worldview seems to be amiss... Evidently I need to make further observations.
