Mike Yates wrote:

> 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?

I am not sure if we are at all in any disagreement. If I say e.g. that
"our temporal truth in astronomy is the Bing Bang theory" and you say
"Bing Bang theory is the most highly probable of all relevant theories",
I feel we say the same thing. 
Then, why do I speak of an -always temporal- truth? Because I don't
think that in any scientific field we could/can have e.g. 2 or 3
relevant theories of let's say 50%, 60% and 65% probabilities. If all
the facts are taken in mind, if no prejudice, or misconception about
the facts is involved, if all rules were upheld, then *one and only
one* theory can result as true, i.e. satisfying, all things considered.
And this is my temporal truth.      
Accepting our limits of thought in time does not imply "a free party
for everyone", or some politically correct "truth" according to one's
personal taste. Temporal yes, but inescapably one.  
 
> Is there any truth from which doubt can be completely eliminated
> (outside the defined mathematical fields you mentioned) ?

Definitely, no. As I've wrote in my previous mail, that would mean
that such a truth is the ultimate one, the eternal one, the "divine"
one. On the contrary, bearing in mind that any of our truths is
temporal, even if it concerns the most solid, obvious and self evident
truth that we posses, makes continuous doubt an indispensable element
of real scientific thought (as all scientists and philosophers can
assure us).   
Again, that isn't the same as to say that pure agnosticism (literally)
should reign. As in politics, it's healthy to doubt the value of any
given party, but when the crucial moment comes, one has to pick his
stand, or he has failed as a citizen.   
  
> 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?

I'll drink my glass of water, though I know that the still unknown
nature of the spin of its electrons may proved it to be something else
than I thought it was. That is, I think based on doubt, but I act
based on my temporal certainty.
Yes, even if a dozen people eye witnessed a crime, its truth is/will be
always questionable. Yet, we'll act according to our truth, which can
also be our final uncertainty about the given suspect.
Living and thinking are not identical. I live "as if" the sun will rise
again tomorrow. Still, I think that maybe the sun will not rise again
some "tomorrow" and if I happen to be an astronomer, rightly so!
  
> The Scottish legal system has a third verdict of "not
> proven".

We have "innocent due to doubts". Scottish system probably wants to
retain its right to a retrial, thus the third option of avoiding the
proclamation of innocence, but I am of my court here. :-) 

> 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.       

I am not sure what you mean by "a hundred possible verdicts". Not
only death penalty, but all court penalties require our 100% proof,
which is not to say that our 100% proof is ultimately the true one.  

Thank you, Mike.-


Christos


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%