View Single Post
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 13th May 2008, 12:54 PM
evangelicalhumanist's Avatar
evangelicalhumanist evangelicalhumanist is offline
Seeking intelligent life
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,561
Coins: 221,439.23
Bank: 2,107,551.09
Total Coins: 2,328,990.32
Donate
Karma:1553
evangelicalhumanist has a brilliant futureevangelicalhumanist has a brilliant futureevangelicalhumanist has a brilliant futureevangelicalhumanist has a brilliant futureevangelicalhumanist has a brilliant futureevangelicalhumanist has a brilliant futureevangelicalhumanist has a brilliant futureevangelicalhumanist has a brilliant futureevangelicalhumanist has a brilliant futureevangelicalhumanist has a brilliant futureevangelicalhumanist has a brilliant future



Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey1
Quote:
The sacred truth of science is that there are no sacred truths
If that were true, then let S be any scientific sentence. If every S is possibly false, then so is the sentence: "there is good reason to believe a scientific sentence is more approximately correct of nature versus a non-scientific sentence." Any sentence that is used to justify this sentence itself would be possibly false ad infinitum. Even this sentence is possibly false!
Yes, everytime we employ self-reference we arrive in difficulty (see Russell's Paradox, Burali-Forti's Paradox, and a bunch involving lying Cretans. Douglas R. Hofstadter covered them nicely in Godel, Escher Back: An Eternal Golden Braid.)

The fact that one can invent paradoxes at will by the simple trick of self-reference, however, doesn't really do justice to the elegance of Sagan's statement, which instead uses self-reference to make a deeply important point about science. I like the way he does it better, thanks.
__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.
Reply With Quote