On 4 fév, 03:41, rAgAv wrote:
So the fact it has never been falsified makes it baseless? You have a
strange notion of baseless.

I call it baseless because it hasn't been falsified *yet*. The
occurence of future falsification is uncertain. Therefore, laws cannot
be stamped down as "true forever". So, the assumptions that laws are
true is ultimately baseless...though it can be said to be practical.
It is just like saying that the keyboard you're typing with will work
forever just because it's been working till now...since its creation.
Such an assumption, in my view, is baseless.

Descartes had the same feeling at first.

He then decided to try and find some footing that he could trust
as absolute. It took him years to finally conclude that since
he could think, this could only mean that he really existed.

He then rebuilt all of his thinking schemes on that footing, starting
with identifying what in the material world sustained his thinking
process: his brain, then the body that sustained his brain, and
so on, and then went on to try understanding what his body and
all of the universe was made of at the more elementary level, from
what was known at the time.

What you probably need is to do a similar exercise, that is,
find some absolute reference that you will trust as being
absolute.

André Miichaud