[ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth"

[Lee Corbin]

Jef wrote in the thread on Mathematics in the Natural Sciences

> Stefano wrote:
> 
>> ... I simply assume that the "heliocentric" view is simply a much
>> simpler, more elegant and more Occam-compliant way to describe
>> our portion of the universe.
> 
> Isn't the "more Occam-compliant way", simpler and more elegant, the
> now common scientific view that there is /no/ such privileged position
> or portion of the universe?

I would agree, except that in certain ways we do obviously act
as though certain positions or opinions were privileged. I might
suggest, for example, that you believe that some of your views
concerning the development over time of concept applicability
ought to be privileged  :-)

More concretely, what are we to do but admit that certain
descriptions about daily life *are* privileged?  For example
"almost all cars require oil" is to be seen as highly preferred
or privileged over "cars run just as well without oil as with".
Another such privileged position might be the claim that there
are now but two viable candidates running for president of
the U.S.

Can't it also be the same in science? Why not conclude that
the heliocentric theory not only has the upper hand in terms
of widespread belief, but, so far as we have been able to
tell with our finest instruments and most concentrated
ratiocination, is simply a vastly superior view to the geocentric
one? That sounds like privilege to me!  :-)  It merits our almost
total endorsement, and, like Stathis said, it's kind of a waste of
time to wonder whether or not the heliocentric theory is correct.

Apologies for picking on one particular word, but I decided
to take the chance that maybe I was addressing genuine and
substantial disagreement.

Lee