View Single Post
arildno
#8
Feb16-08, 06:21 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 12,016
Quote Quote by CaptainQuasar View Post
That's not entirely true. A great deal of scientific progress has been made with completely incorrect scientific models - corpuscular optics, phlogiston chemistry, the Rutherford atom. Inaccuracy in a model certainly limits its usefulness but by no means does it make the model useless.

For example, QM and GR are very far from being integrated; at least one of them must have major errors or inadequacies. But that doesn't prevent them from being essential to science.
Hmm..you misunderstood me, possibly because my bad phrasing:

Any prediction made from mathematical modelling "should" be understood to have the form :

"INSOFAR as our rules of inference holds in the world, and the structures in it has been correctly represented in our model, THEN it must hold that we will see...blah-blah".

That is what I meant by "must assume".