> Matt: The word "proof" is pointless in science. (It's the ONLY word of note for mathematicians.) I've come to a recent conclusion that the entire idea of "truth" is meaningless in science. You see a phenomenon, you create a model that explains it, and the life or death of the model is its ability to accurately predict events in the real world. 
> 
> If you have a scientific mindset, you gave up on the idea of "truth" a long, long time ago.-Does this approach allow the computer model results to be so acccepted as offering accurate predictions? The following suggests how life got its starter materials, and it must be true because we have life on Earth. Only problem is that all the curent analysis of meteorites finds only a smidgen of the stuff needed.-http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46898620/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.T3Yu5PBSRjA

Natural Scientists (like the two you mention) are *driven* by observation. Science isn't about truth, its about model building, and building robust models.
> 
> Just like string theory. Very pretty math and no proofs by observation. Robust! Ha!-Explain to me how the theory of acceleration is more than a model? I dare you. String theory is out. No physicist of note I've heard of has ever said that String theory IS reality nor failed to admit that there is no current way to test it.-The word "proof" is pointless in science. (It's the ONLY word of note for mathematicians.) I've come to a recent conclusion that the entire idea of "truth" is meaningless in science. You see a phenomenon, you create a model that explains it, and the life or death of the model is its ability to accurately predict events in the real world. -We should be on the same page here. For most people, the fact that a model accurately reflects reality is "truth" but since we admit that science never ends, then we can never truly say that we've arrived at "truth." Only "what's true given known observations." -None of this should really be "new hat" but I've had recent conversations elsewhere where this exact topic has come up. -If you have a scientific mindset, you gave up on the idea of "truth" a long, long time ago.

Natural Scientists (like the two you mention) are *driven* by observation. Science isn't about truth, its about model building, and building robust models.-Just like string theory. Very pretty math and no proofs by observation. Robust! Ha!

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/20-things-you-didn2019t-know-about-galileo
> 
> "Einstein was Galileo's biggest fan. "All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it," wrote Einstein. "Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality. Because Galileo saw this, and particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is the father of modern physics—indeed, of modern science altogether."
> 
> So if Galileo got it, and Einstein got it, how come modern scientist like Hawking and Dawkins don't get it? Mathematics without observation have absolutely no relevance to reality.-Well, I would argue precisely the opposite: your observation implies that both Dawkins and Hawking start with equations and then ignore observation... this isn't what happens. They derive equations to explain observations. Your observation is better applied to "pure" math guys like me, who say "Only the side of the penny I see is copper colored." -Which, though pedantic also serves to deliver as much truth as possible.-Natural Scientists (like the two you mention) are *driven* by observation. Science isn't about truth, its about model building, and building robust models.

Chaitin's struggles:

http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/darwin.pdf

Matt, any thoughts?

Lee Spetner (very orthodox Jew) says no way, so far:

http://journalofcosmology.com/JoC16pdfs/23_Spetner%20-%20Copy.pdf

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128271.900-heal-thyself-meditate.html

I feel the pain of this every time I stop doing it...

Got to get to zazen!!!

http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/darwin.pdf

Matt, any thoughts?