I think you're correct. But though scientific theories are more intelligible, one needs to determine the source of that intelligibility, cf. Brahmajālasutta where phassa is the source of the "all-embracing net of views".mikenz66 wrote:In my view, the key thing about science is not whether or not it correctly represents "truth" or "reality". The key point is that it gives predictions that are testable, and, in some cases, have a utility. So, for example, Newton's laws of motion give a good enough approximation to the observed motion of objects of various sizes to enable engineering ranging from bicycles to lunar landings. Consequently, it makes sense to work on the provisional assumption that such theories will continue to give correct predictions.
I don't want to force Heidegger on to anyone, but here's a worthwhile article that might provide the orientation to better understand Ven. Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli's essay. (Keeping in mind that "to be" means to be present, i.e. to be cognized.)
http://www.harvardphilosophy.com/issues ... panich.pdfHeidegger expresses this same paradox, though cryptically, when he says, "When Dasein does not exist, ... it cannot be said that entities are, nor can it be said that they are not." The point here is not the trivial matter that if human beings did not exist, it could not be said that entities are, because there would be no one to do the saying. Rather, it could not - most accurately - be said that entities are, because this "are" is a modality of the being of the entities, and consequently is not apart from human beings. Yet, again, neither could it be said that entities are not; for even the negation of the to be is an expression of an understanding of being. We are left with the paradox, a paradox which is rooted in the nature of language and understanding. However, as long as we bear in mind these limitations, we do know that one of the ways something can be made intelligible by us is as present-at-hand-i.e., as that which "is" independently of us. Based on this understanding of presence-at-hand, we can say that even if we did not exist, natural objects would still continue to be. We simply need to remember that the being of these objects-and thus the to be-has its origin in human understanding. (emphasis added)