I think his point was number 5 was more to show that the scientific method itself rests on fundamental assumptions that aren't proved by the method itself.
Even if you could be certain about the speed of light, I think it would still hold that the scientific method rests on these assumptions such as the laws of the universe holding temporally and spatially. We assume a consistently of those values despite the fact that we can't really be certain that those values maintain in all places and have maintained throughout the past stretches of time.
I think his point was number 5 was more to show that the scientific method itself rests on fundamental assumptions that aren't proved by the method itself.
ReplyDeleteEven if you could be certain about the speed of light, I think it would still hold that the scientific method rests on these assumptions such as the laws of the universe holding temporally and spatially. We assume a consistently of those values despite the fact that we can't really be certain that those values maintain in all places and have maintained throughout the past stretches of time.