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

[Jef Allbright]

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> 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  :-)

Lee, are you arguing with a selection of my words, or what you know of
me (my structure of beliefs?)  I would expect that by now you would be
familiar with my repeated point that **all** expressions of knowlege
entail a subjective point of view.

So, that being given, one might suppose that my point to Stefano was
something like suggesting that his point was inherently incomplete.

Coincidently, Brian Atkins yesterday on Transhuman Tech posted on
recent research suggesting that the mystery of "dark energy" involved
in the observed acceleration of expansion of space may be more
"simply" explained on the basis that our position in the universe is
indeed special.

Okay, time for me to drain the tanks, stow all loose items, and head
the RV back toward home base.  I'm likely to be quiet again on this
list for a while...

- Jef