Quite right! A lot of people, including, unfortunately, most scientists, think that the business of science is to understand how the universe _really_ works. This is demonstrably not the case. It is a symptom of the secularist religion that rose to prominence in the 19th century and has as its chief saint Charles Darwin and current pope Richard Dawkins. Anyone who's studied chemistry in high school and university knows that the first thing they tell you in any given year is that you should forget everything you've been told about chemistry so far because that was an over-simplification and that this is how it "really" is... just to be told the same thing the next year. The more you learn about chemistry the more you find out that it's really just physics and the more you learn about physics you discover that physics is all math. Math is an abstraction. There are no numbers in reality. Numbers are a way of thinking about things. They're a really useful way of thinking about things, but they aren't "real". Trusting your model because it has been shown by many people over many years to be an effective model does not mean that you aren't making a leap of faith that the model accurately represents how things really are and work. The best models are still only abstractions of the real thing.

Zip.ca is already partnered with Rogers. Rogers Video stores are closing all over the place and Rogers is pushing people in the direction of Zip.ca. They know that the world (including Zip.ca) is moving in the direction of the Netflix model and they are just cynically pushing their customers into higher (more expensive) tiers. They do it with TV and with cell phones too. Where they are the cable provider they have a duopoloy and they run it like a monopoly.

It is important to note that the idea the "science is about truth" is a common intellectual error of modern society. Science has nothing to do with finding truth or learning how the universe actually works or anything of the sort. Science is about building models of observable natural phenomena. The point of the models is to conform with what is observable and hopefully predict something that hasn't yet been observed, but which can then be tested and seen to work. Good science is about building models that work well, and refining models that don't. Poor science is about building models that sound like they ought to work but don't conform to observation. Really lousy science is about building models that can't be tested against reality and don't predict anything. Are you listening evolutionary psychologists? Take for example: "survival of the fittest" - This is a model for the mechanism by which one organism gets to spread its genes. It sounds perfectly plausible, almost indisputably sensible. But what does it mean? The key is the word "fittest". "Fittest" means best able to survive. So the model mechanism is really survival of the one ones that survived. Now it sounds trite and unhelpful, which it is. How do we know it's not "survival of the luckiest" or "survival of every n-th one"? We don't, but survival of the fittest is more appealing to our cultural sensibilities, so we go with that. If you remember that science is about coming up with ways to get your head around nature, rather than about figuring out what nature really is, then you don't get caught in the trap of "how can you trust science?" You only have to trust it as far as it is working for you, you don't have to build your world view on it.