>>>then please keep on correcting my responses.>H:"because there is always the possibility that our observations are not the whole matter, but the more quantity of confirmed predictions of S the more likely S is true]." D: I have no argument with that at all! My entire argument is with scientists who think they are being rational and working with well defined concepts when they clearly are not.> what purpose would you model serve (I know I totally fail to understand your model...)?>In other words, truth is dependent by another criteria (your model) which is itself a representation of reality.> The trouble with other approaches is that they do not predict phenomena reliably. >You say that GR is wrong> and that your model satisfies the same experiements as GR, however why should we do that other than the coherent factor that your model offers? There are no new predictions.>This is where anti-realism comes into play since we are to reject a theory GR as true simly because it does not correspond with your model.>On what basis?>Dick, this *is* anti-realism. You are basing theory S not on a correspondence to a state of affairs but on coherency to your model (i.e., the effective criteria of your anti-realist framework). > For example, you rejected GR based on this inconsistency with your model, right? If evidence was not of the verificationist variety then a verificationist would be forced to *reject* the evidence as evidence for something.>>This is your normal 'dig' that I've come to expect at the end of your posts (after usually prolonged debate).