does Science say the Truth?

[SA_mkhya (Sâmkhya)]

Hello,

        First I wish to apologize for my poor English. It is not my mother language. 

It is my first appearance here. I hope that the climate is hospitable.

I would like to share with you an idea about Science in order to test its validity.

I think that in the field of scientific explanation, the concept of truth is replaced by the more pertinent concept of «conformity to observations». An explanation such as: “every body is made of particles” or, in another sense “heat increases the size of bodies” cannot be proven to be true, but it can just be proven to be to conform to all observations made hiterto. This is so because:

1. A false explanation could account for some facts as well as the true explanation. Perhaps we will never know that a theory or a law was false, because all facts that we met were well explained by these.
2. An explanation is general in character, but the knowledge of the general is beyond our reach. I mean that we only know with certainty particular instances of things.

This remark, however, does not apply to observations: an observation of a particular phenomenon is obviously true.

Moreover, even if the Truth does not apply to explanations, falsity still applies. An explanation can be proven to be false, if we find something that, according the explanation, should not be there or be the way it is.

Are you agree?

[detrop]

Sâmkhya:

Welcome to ILP.

Very nice summary there. I’d like to point out an even deeper chasm worth critiquing regarding the proficiency of scientific explaination. Kind of keeps the whole ordeal from even leaving the starting block.

in the field of scientific explanation, the concept of truth is replaced by the more pertinent concept of «conformity to observations». An explanation such as: “every body is made of particles” or, in another sense “heat increases the size of bodies” cannot be proven to be true, but it can just be proven to be to conform to all observations made hiterto.

Not only is this true, but there is also some conflict in translating “observations” via “concepts” through logical expression, i.e., modal symbology and language. So, not only does scientific observation conform to the conditions in which it is present, “cutting it short” of an entire view, the expression of knowledge through language and logic is questionable itself, also.

an observation of a particular phenomenon is obviously true.

Yes, that’s one thing we know for certain, eh? Its the tangle created out of evaluating “truth” and looking for why-ness that causes meaning to happen. Here, not only is “true” an indifferent, cold hard fact, but also a very intimate ideal. Science, I think, is really a means of expressing a pathological need to create value, and at the heart of the matter lies a passion pushing rational thought.

Anybody wise enough to even merely sense meaningless-ness has already made a wager with himself. He toils daily with logic, caution, and rational thought, but he knows all the while that it might be in vain, as he can imagine meaningless-ness, and, in fact, has put his money on it. The grand absurdity here, my friend, is that when this man realizes this, he stumbles upon an irony. As a scientist he hopes he’s wrong. All his calculations say that he is a fleck of dust…the “truths” indicate that much. Why then does he make a profession out of discovering meaningless-ness, why doesn’t he become a drunken poet and sail the seven seas?

I’ll tell you this, Sâmkhya, something fishy is going on.

[Rounder]

Truth by definition is undefinable. Every sentance is subject to infinite regression. There is a differnce between truth and fact. Science deals with facts. A fact is not an absolute truth. I would geuss that most of us have come to the realisation that there is no absolute truth. So a fact is a finite truth, based on the accumulation of thought/knlowledge up to this point. No fact can be proven, yet it is a sufficient tool to rely on previous facts, when approching the world. Gravity is a fact, not a truth, yet it is a rather persistant fact.

[noneedforaname]

Science has gone beyond the reasonable claims it makes.
In these times scientists expect human beings to accept what they have tested, without the capability of testing it for themselves.
This, in my view, is not empirical, and therefore a self-contradiction.
Science is a set of observations about phenomenon of experience, and a set of possible explanations for them.
The explanations should be ignored, we can get informative and helpful data without having to tell everyone we know everything about it (especially when we don’t you damn scientists shakes fist)

All we need know about phenomenon is that they can be reproduced, and some of the methods thus far tried for doing that. And then, that when we have attempted those methods that we have succesfully achieved it.
Like you say, we can reproduce gravity. This is pertinent, because we can’t reproduce ‘not-gravity’ (yet).

[Troy]

@Rounder

Truth by definition is undefinable. Every sentance is subject to infinite regression. There is a differnce between truth and fact. Science deals with facts. A fact is not an absolute truth. I would geuss that most of us have come to the realisation that there is no absolute truth. So a fact is a finite truth, based on the accumulation of thought/knlowledge up to this point. No fact can be proven, yet it is a sufficient tool to rely on previous facts, when approching the world. Gravity is a fact, not a truth, yet it is a rather persistant fact.

What kind of epistemic status would you give to this: 2+2=4?

Or a logical axium like “nothing can both exist and not exist at the same time?”

[SA_mkhya (Sâmkhya)]

There is a differnce between truth and fact. Science deals with facts. A fact is not an absolute truth.

Yes, truth is an attribute of the statement of a fact, not an attribute of the fact itself. Likewise, fidelity is an attribute of a representation of an object, not of the object itself.

If “fact” is taken to mean that particular phenomenon which was observed, its stament will be certain (within a realistic framework).

If, however, “fact” is taken to mean something general (a substance of this kind melts at this temperature), its statement will not be absolutely certain.

---

Let us not stop at this step. Even if truth does not apply to scientific explanations (at least usually), it does not mean that Science does not lead toward the Truth our view of the world. It is so because Science can still determine, to some extent, what is NOT true.

For instance, it was believed in the beginning of the 19th century, that the synthesis of organical compounds requires a “vital force” within the living organism. But a chemist named Wohler managed to make by artificial means the synthesis of an organic compound (urea). So the “vital-force theory” was no longer tenable. Thus, our view of the world underwent a change and Wohler’s experiment led us closer to the Truth.

[Rounder]

@Sâmkhya

Let us not stop at this step. Even if truth does not apply to scientific explanations (at least usually), it does not mean that Science does not lead toward the Truth our view of the world. It is so because Science can still determine, to some extent, what is NOT true.

For instance, it was believed in the beginning of the 19th century, that the synthesis of organical compounds requires a “vital force” within the living organism. But a chemist named Wohler managed to make by artificial means the synthesis of an organic compound (urea). So the “vital-force theory” was no longer tenable. Thus, our view of the world underwent a change and Wohler’s experiment led us closer to the Truth.

I think science can lead us to better and better definitions of the truth, but never to absolute truth. The more that scientific observations match our current theorys, such as the quantum electro-magnetic field theory, which is the most accurate theory we have, then we are closer to the truth.

I would relate truth to infinity, and then the reflection principle alone would mean that we could never understand the absolute, through thought, since thought is finite.

Or really all you need to do is understand Godel’s incompletness theorem, and you would realise that thought can never fully comprehend truth. Thats why Godel was nicknamed the spoiler, spoiled the idea of absolute truth, When he came up with that lil diddy all the mathematicians in all the lands felt like they got hit with a sucker punch:P, and he also messed with Einsteins theory of relativity comming up with various solutions that would allow time travel.

@Troy

What kind of epistemic status would you give to this: 2+2=4?

Or a logical axium like “nothing can both exist and not exist at the same time?”

They are both facts. Its like “tableism”. I walk into a room see a table, and say “thats a table”, its not a truth, its a fact. For language purposes we say truth, or true, but what we really mean is fact. Nothing we say can ever be an absolute truth, for the very reason alone that after we said it the world may have changed.

[BeenaJain]

Look at it this way, it’s a fact that people believed that the earth is flat at one time, but it was not the truth. So, science can be false and not portray the truth. Things can be explained and even verified but still may be false. Absolute truth would stand for itself though, and no one would question it because they wouldn’t be able to, as absolute truth would be universal understood by all and doubted by none. It will speak for itself. So, fact cannot be absolute truth, for a time people may think it is true, but when absolute truth comes, all ambiguities will disappear, that’s the definition of absolute because it stands by itself.

[Phaedrus]

Don’t knock science too hard for that one! If the Roman Catholic Church had its’ way we still be being taught the Earth is flat. Greek scientist in the years B.C.E. already knew the world was round, and even had fairly accurately estimated the circumference thru geometry.

From my perspective “Truth” is a term that gets bandied around way too much. One persons truth is anothers delusion. Science deals in facts, not truths in the philosophical “talk on the cereal box” sense. Science deals in the realities of the physical world- beyond that, it has nothing to say. Nothing can be said of “truth” without resorting to religious dogma or philosophical mental masturbation.

[Kennethamy]

@Sâmkhya

Hello,

        First I wish to apologize for my poor English. It is not my mother language. 

It is my first appearance here. I hope that the climate is hospitable.

I would like to share with you an idea about Science in order to test its validity.

I think that in the field of scientific explanation, the concept of truth is replaced by the more pertinent concept of «conformity to observations». An explanation such as: “every body is made of particles” or, in another sense “heat increases the size of bodies” cannot be proven to be true, but it can just be proven to be to conform to all observations made hiterto. This is so because:

1. A false explanation could account for some facts as well as the true explanation. Perhaps we will never know that a theory or a law was false, because all facts that we met were well explained by these.
2. An explanation is general in character, but the knowledge of the general is beyond our reach. I mean that we only know with certainty particular instances of things.

This remark, however, does not apply to observations: an observation of a particular phenomenon is obviously true.

Moreover, even if the Truth does not apply to explanations, falsity still applies. An explanation can be proven to be false, if we find something that, according the explanation, should not be there or be the way it is.

Are you agree?

I think that you are advocating a view held by the late philosopher of science, Karl Popper. (See his, Conjectures and Refutations) According to Popper, positive evidence cannot confirm a theory since it is always possible for there to be some other rival (and perhaps better) explanation of the positive evidence. However, negative evidence does falsify a theory, since if a theory has a false implication, it must be false.

This asymmetry between confirmation and falsification is quite controversial. An interesting book which deals with Popper’s view very critically is, David Stove’s Anything Goes.

[BeenaJain]

@Phaedrus

Don’t knock science too hard for that one! If the Roman Catholic Church had its’ way we still be being taught the Earth is flat. Greek scientist in the years B.C.E. already knew the world was round, and even had fairly accurately estimated the circumference thru geometry.

From my perspective “Truth” is a term that gets bandied around way too much. One persons truth is anothers delusion. Science deals in facts, not truths in the philosophical “talk on the cereal box” sense. Science deals in the realities of the physical world- beyond that, it has nothing to say. Nothing can be said of “truth” without resorting to religious dogma or philosophical mental masturbation.

Phaedrus, where you say, “One persons truth is anothers delusion,” you cannot be right because truth is not limited to one person alone but is truth from every perspective, that’s why one wrong thing and the truth can be proven false. If truth was truth from one person’s perspective it would become an opinion and then yes, another could have a different opinion. I know your words sound nice when you say the above but that doesn’t make them true.

I just wanted to correct what I wrote in my post above. Fact can become absolute truth but absolute truth cannot remain just a fact.

[Phaedrus]

That just comes back to what I said- the word “truth” gets bandied about too much. In one sense, a fact that can be verified could be called truth. But ‘truth’ is generally a loaded word meant to validate whatever nutty pet view the crank saying it wants to support. You tell me and we’ll both know what “truth” is universally accepted by all?

That fact is there are very few ontological truths in the world, if by truth you mean something everyone can agree on. I’ve ranted at length on the futility of wisdom, and this is what I mean. Instead of taking this as a challenge, please think about it at length and ponder what I’m saying.

[someoneisatthedoor]

Dear all

Popper’s model of falsifiability was indeed controversial at the time of its publication, but seems to form the basis for most science in the world right now.

ALL scientific theories can, potentially, be falsified and (this is the crucial part for me) MUST be able to be falsified to count as scientific theories. Popper goes on to rant at psychology and sociology whose theories are unscientific according to him, because their claims cannot be falsified.

Rounder:

I would geuss that most of us have come to the realisation that there is no absolute truth.

Actually I cannot conceive of a situation whereby the proposition ‘there is something rather than nothing’ isn’t true. Ergo I’d say that the proposition is absolutely true, that it is impossible to imagine or describe a scenario or perspective whereby it wasn’t true.

Unless you can suggest otherwise, I’d posit that this is an ontological truth we have no choice but to agree upon

Now if you like you can break down my argument to the tautology ‘for something to exist, something must exist’ (i.e. existence itself, Being)

I came up with this when pondering Aristotle’s suggestion that the only thing that could be said to transcend the problem of the criterion is a self-evident truth, something that is the same no matter how you look at it

Phaedrus:

But ‘truth’ is generally a loaded word meant to validate whatever nutty pet view the crank saying it wants to support.

Certainly the word truth is often used as a rhetorical lever, but this isn’t a reason per se to be sceptical about Truth, no?

[Rounder]

@BeenaJain

Phaedrus, where you say, “One persons truth is anothers delusion,” you cannot be right because truth is not limited to one person alone but is truth from every perspective, that’s why one wrong thing and the truth can be proven false. If truth was truth from one person’s perspective it would become an opinion and then yes, another could have a different opinion. I know your words sound nice when you say the above but that doesn’t make them true.

I just wanted to correct what I wrote in my post above. Fact can become absolute truth but absolute truth cannot remain just a fact.

I completely agree with Phaedrus, that science deals in facts, and the word truth gets thrown around to much. Also the reference to philosophical mental masterbation. How many times have we debated truth on this forum? How many time have you debated truth with your peers?

I would point to general relativity to point out that truth in fact is limited to the individual. Einstein showed us that truth varies from each observers perspective. If I were to get into a shuttle and travel at near light speed it would appear to me that I was stationary, and that the world outside me was traveling at near light speed. Say it was a subway train that was accelerated, I could not be sure that I was accelerating, or wether I was stationary. The platform would appear that it was travelling towards me at near light speed, and vice versa for the people standing on the platform. They would percieve me at travelling at near light speed. Here you have two different perspectives which create a paradox, and each are completly valid.

Or say that you were floating in outerspace in force free environment. You see someone at a distance, and they are comming towards you and eventually float by. You would percieve yourself as being stationary, and the other person moving, on the other hand from the others perspective they were stationary, and perceived you as moving. Both arguements are equally valid, and there would be no way to prove the other wrong. So from different perspectives different individuals would percieve “truth” in a different manner.

@someoneisatthedoor

Rounder:

I would geuss that most of us have come to the realisation that there is no absolute truth.

Actually I cannot conceive of a situation whereby the proposition ‘there is something rather than nothing’ isn’t true. Ergo I’d say that the proposition is absolutely true, that it is impossible to imagine or describe a scenario or perspective whereby it wasn’t true.

Unless you can suggest otherwise, I’d posit that this is an ontological truth we have no choice but to agree upon

Sure I’ll tackle this The problem with saying you “know”. Using know as representing an absolute truth. “I know this, this is the way things are”. Is that the statement is static. I’ll rely on inductive fallacy for this. Once you say something is true the moment has passed, and it may no longer be true. Again no matter how many times you drop a rock, the next time it may float to the ceiling instead of falling to the ground. I agree that the statement is clear and obvious fact “there is something rather then nothing”. Yet so is “when I drop a rock it will fall to the ground”. No matter how many times you say there is something rather then nothing, the next moment existence may be entirely whiped out into a nothingness, thereby making your previous statement false.

[someoneisatthedoor]

someoneisatthedoor wrote:

Rounder:
Quote:

I would geuss that most of us have come to the realisation that there is no absolute truth.

Actually I cannot conceive of a situation whereby the proposition ‘there is something rather than nothing’ isn’t true. Ergo I’d say that the proposition is absolutely true, that it is impossible to imagine or describe a scenario or perspective whereby it wasn’t true.

Unless you can suggest otherwise, I’d posit that this is an ontological truth we have no choice but to agree upon

Rounder:
Sure I’ll tackle this The problem with saying you “know”. Using know as representing an absolute truth. “I know this, this is the way things are”. Is that the statement is static. I’ll rely on inductive fallacy for this. Once you say something is true the moment has passed, and it may no longer be true. Again no matter how many times you drop a rock, the next time it may float to the ceiling instead of falling to the ground. I agree that the statement is clear and obvious fact “there is something rather then nothing”. Yet so is “when I drop a rock it will fall to the ground”. No matter how many times you say there is something rather then nothing, the next moment existence may be entirely whiped out into a nothingness, thereby making your previous statement false.

If you think that it is possible that the universe could just suddenly stop existing then go ahead and think that but I don’t think that is a possible event.

Also the inductive fallacy refers to specific situations, like the rock falling to the ground. The existence of something rather than nothing is simply a precondition of everything.

I think you cannot conceive of nothing nor describe it, not because of you, just because it cannot be done.

Tom

[Rounder]

@someoneisatthedoor

If you think that it is possible that the universe could just suddenly stop existing then go ahead and think that but I don’t think that is a possible event.

Also the inductive fallacy refers to specific situations, like the rock falling to the ground. The existence of something rather than nothing is simply a precondition of everything.

I think you cannot conceive of nothing nor describe it, not because of you, just because it cannot be done.

Tom

I totally disagree. The rock falling to the ground is just an example to illustrate that the universe is not static. So whatever is true one moment the next it may not be. I’m sure that the universe would not take into consideration what you think is possible or not. Many physicists would have thought that an electron tunneling through matter would not be a possible event, and yet it normal happenstance at the subatomic level.

Our human brains can’t concieve of higher dimensions, we can’t visualize higher dimensions, yet it may be possible that our universe exists in 10 dimensions. Just because we cannot conceive of something does not mean it cannot be done, or doesn’t happen.

[BeenaJain]

Guys, absolute truth has to be there or our world could not be defined at all. It is against the platform of absolute that our world sees a definition. It’s just so obvious, I don’t want to argue about this please.

[BillWaltonSexUnivers (BillWaltonSexUniversity)]

For us to have this discussion we must be communicating.

Is that an absolute truth?

Also science must say some truth…we did land on the moon and have made many other scientific advancements through time…

[BeenaJain]

Actually you’re wrong! For us to have a discussion we don’t need to communicate at all because people can be silent and still communicate. Therefore, your absolute truth is not absolute. Get it babe? Moreover, I could just debate in my own mind, ponder over what you said and without actual communication with you I’d be discussing. So, where’s your absolute truth then?

[someoneisatthedoor]

Hello

Rounder said

I totally disagree. The rock falling to the ground is just an example to illustrate that the universe is not static. So whatever is true one moment the next it may not be. I’m sure that the universe would not take into consideration what you think is possible or not. Many physicists would have thought that an electron tunneling through matter would not be a possible event, and yet it normal happenstance at the subatomic level.

Our human brains can’t concieve of higher dimensions, we can’t visualize higher dimensions, yet it may be possible that our universe exists in 10 dimensions. Just because we cannot conceive of something does not mean it cannot be done, or doesn’t happen.

The universe has always existed and will always exist, however much the nature of that existence (or our knowledge of it) changes. You say, correctly, that the universe is not static, it doesn’t have to be to have perpetual existence. Indeed I’m pretty sure something static always fades - entropy always increases

What you are trying to conceive of is the universe not being there, which I dispute is possible, either conceptually or materially. Regardless of whether it actually is possible, I want to know what makes you think that it won’t always be there?