Quote:
Quote by: rez  Whether or not something is "provable" has no bearing. This is about coming up with explanations that actually explain how reality works.
Something either works or it does not work. Just because it is not provable does not mean it can not work.
As a human being you are inclined to be a detective by using the clues around you, so you can make a sound and valid investigation. The investigation can lead to results or new discoveries that were previously unknown before the detective work. The investigation can also lead to no results and discoveries.
4) What criterion will we use to prefer one explanation over another?
5) When we have chosen an explanation should we stick with it? |
I agree with you that "knowledge" is what works. I thin we agree, discovery though is not discovery of truth but of what works. Then the answer to four is the criterion we use it what works. And 5 is we should stick with it until it does not work or a theory that works better is found.
Though I believe what I wrote just now, it does not mean it is the only way to view the world or inquiry. For me the point of inquiry is to find a workable belief. However, there are other ways to view the problem and I do not think my view is the only one. There are many other judges other than workability because there is no way to judge the judge.
Here is a quote of what I am trying to say I think we actually agree: "one opinion can be better than another, though it cannot be truer."