Quote:
|
Originally Posted by niin
To define is to understand...
|
I beg to differ. A definition in this sense is not understanding but an attempt to quantify something. If I say "vacuum is the absence of matter" then what sort of understanding have I provided? It is all relative - it will depend on how much the reader knows (ie, it has a knowledge bias).
Quote:
You can use high value statement to work out other "logical" statements, but you can not say that logic tell...that this information is true.
To do that we have to agree to a reference frame for which to dicuss the statement. This "frame of reference" must be a max (or minimum) value statement.
|
I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that if we agree upon the limits of logic, we will know what is true and what is false? Or are you saying that we can reach a concensus?
Now, why would a consensus be interesting?
Science is about finding the theories that best explain what we observe, and then test them. This requires logic, but it also requires certain leaps of faith (we must assume that such and such is true). But the very fundamental concept of the scientific method disallows us from ever proving anything *final*, thus we can never really know any "truth", regardless of how well we define the limits of anything (and how do we quantify these limits in the first place?).
