On Jun 21, 2014, at 4:49 PM, Louis Talman <email@example.com> wrote:
> If A implies that the sky is green, but the sky is blue, what you've > really shown is that you were wrong when you thought you'd shown that > A is true.
That was exactly the point Lou. A lot of people (reformers in this case) don?t get that. They mistake the trappings of science with proof. They will submit an insignificant experiment, or a hundred examples of the same insignificant experiment, and claim that the sky is green, while everyone knows it is blue.
> Science doesn't prove things are true. Not ever. It disproves, and > thus leads us to better models---models that haven't been disproved.
No, it doesn?t. I wouldn?t even say it disproves. In science reality is the truth so there is no need to prove or disprove anything. Science builds models, the models predict, the predictions are tested against reality, the models are then adjusted or simply abandoned, and so on, and so on, and so on.
A lot of people don?t get this either. They think that science is a tool with which to define reality instead of a tool with which to understand reality. The former view is actually alchemy.. You pick a goal, the philosopher?s stone for instance, and then you create a science around that goal. In education, instead of studying how smart students think, you pick a goal to make all (or most) students smart, and then create a science around that goal.