In an article to !arch-theory, dated Tue, 9 Nov 1999 02:14:55, Christos
Galanis <[log in to unmask]> writes
>So, yes, there is truth in archaeology, as much as in mineralogy, a
>temporal truth, a human truth, and it should be the best according to
>prescribed rules one might have in a given time. It won't be eternal,
>it will just be our truth now.
So how do you feel, Christos, about the quantification of the degree of
"worth" of truths?
Would it help us to be more objective in science to talk not of "truths"
but of "high probabilities" and where possible to estimate a percentage
of that probability?
Is there any truth from which doubt can be completely eliminated
(outside the defined mathematical fields you mentioned) ?
Might other fields of human activity benefit from this mode of thinking,
e.g. criminal justice, where an estimated probability might give more
authority to a judgement that a bland statement of fact, so often later
proved false? The Scottish legal system has a third verdict of "not
proven". I feel that a hundred possible verdicts would be more
realistic; maybe more if, for instance, the death penalty were to
require say 97.5% proof.
Have fun,
--
Mike Yates Frome Somerset England
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|