Science as truth

Science is an evolving proposition which deals with reason and fact.
What we know today will almost certainly be reformed or replaced at some point in the future.
Is to think that science somehow provides the truth a mistake?

If you reify truth, yes.

If not, welcome to reality.

Thank you. Wow … reality sure is a big ocean … hope I don’t drown in it.

Given that reality is a hermeneutic process, we are faced with the counterintuitive position that the real does indeed outnumber the unreal. Naturally, the existence of counterfactual statements and other grammatical expressions somewhat complicate this matter, but by their very nature those statements are based in a shared, created, and mutually understood reality so even in trying to be difficult their touchstone remains rather pedestrian. Like trying not to think about a white rhino, or elephant, or whatever apocryphal version of Tolstoy you want to quote.

Through trial and error in material matters we see results in man’s mental prowess. In matters pertaining to metaphysics nobody knows what is true. When it comes to one’s situations in life, it is what he knows to be true to him that guides him.

Italics are nice, but I think you are still missing a capital “H” or two in that post.

Just sayin’.

Science doesn’t tell us how things are; it tells us what we can say about how things are.

I disagree. Philosophy, particularly regarding language, tells us what we can say about how things are. Science hits a different (? higher?) level than that and results in a different product with a different set of values attached to it.

I had you down for an instrumentalist :stuck_out_tongue:

Science works within paradigms, and these are expressed in thought and language like the rest of our perception. It’s more rigorously tested, absolutely, but at root it’s still based on assumptions and working practices and consensus. A scientific tool (say, a spectroscope) expresses, validates and furthers the theories behind its construction.

Although maybe the confusion comes into “say” - we can say things mathematically, too; it’s maybe the different/higher level that you mean?

Science can only ever tell you what some people agreed that they saw and thought.

So what then …. truth is too vast a thing to capture? Science can only say something is valid/true paradigmatically?

Thought cannot conceive of the possibility of a movement without a beginning and without this point where it is going to arrive someday or sometime. So there is the problem of the thought; its actions are limited to its perpetuation, its continuity, its permanence. But anything it says about anything – it tries to talk about, deal with, or experience regarding the quality and essence of living energy that accompanies the lifeless knowledge with which we analyze – it cannot, because living thought is something dead.

Nobody knows anything about the truth behind life. There’s only the intellect that is sharpened with every new ideation and theory that comes along. Just because we can improve the way we function mentally and scientifically, and further master our abilities to more deeply and profoundly communicate, it doesn’t mean we are chipping away at revealing truth. It only allows us to see various logically ascertained premises that we call truth.

No, not unless you think that slowly but surely applying cement and bricks, through the rain and the heat and the cold, and the postponement of building because of a lack of money, etc., in order to build a house… is also a mistake.

No, I think that science eventually slowly but surely provides the truth; if it is the truth of how things ‘really’ are that we are after, and not some quick, pseudo explanation to satisfy our impatience…though at the same time, science does struggle through a lot of examination/exploration/imagination/intuition/genius/flukes/accidents…mistakes and error. And isn’t that also the nature and the journey of ‘truth’?

This statement can be accepted as truth if and only if: A. You fully subscribe to the causal principle (in which case you must accept intelligent design) and B. You subscribe to realism (consensus reality).

The problem with consensus reality is that it is incoherent and by nature paradoxical…when you can make sense of time and explain it to an 8 year-old then I will (without delay) accept science as absolute truth.

Truth is a fabrication of the mind intended to enhance our natural survival. Truth gives birth to falsity. Neither can exist without the other. In today’s world, truth is qualified as anything that can be rationally or scientifically explained or measured. Truth is viewed as a popular belief not an individual’s opinion. Many people associate truth with reality but this is not possible. Truth does not exist outside the mind. Knowing reality requires removing thoughts from the mind and simply perceiving instead of contemplating, deducing and concluding.

What can be considered truth by one person won’t necessarily be true for another. In this way truth can be seen as ‘in the mind’, but science has given birth to an ultimate truth. We won’t get anything more truthful than what science has given us. Things that are considered to be true by science are objective, that is probably as close as we’ll get to figuring out how reality is. If one person doesn’t believe it is true, that doesn’t make it false, Objective things are true beyond perception. They may not reveal the entire truth, but at the very least they can tell us things that will always happen, which can be seen as some kind of real truth.

Good point. Before you can be placed in a certain paradigm, mental interpretations of signals entering the brain have to be correctly understood. However, some interpretations fall short of this, or do not help you at all to be in a position where you do understand, or, even if understood, do not reflect perfect truth. It merely proves that we can turn this crank and get the right answers in a certain area. If you restrict yourself to these areas, a theory naturally appears unassailable.

I don’t think science gives birth to ultimate truth, though. So-called discoveries derived from research are born from existing findings. Breakthroughs occur, quantum leaps occur,
rendering discoveries being always up to a point.

Also, the best science can do is declare that something happening again is highly possible. What if something does not happen again? Is it no longer some kind of real truth?

Agreed, I’m not a full determinist. :slight_smile: The scientist don’t believe what they found is just highly possible. However given an infinite amount of time can nothing stay constant? If that’s the case then you right in saying what is true now won’t always be true, and if that’s the case then can nothing ever truly be true?

What I say is valid and true for just this moment. But things are in a flux. A statement made now may very well be contradicted by the next statement, and so on. This is done not with the idea of arriving at an objective grasping of truth; contradictions arise because nothing can be expressed, and you can’t say this (particular) is the truth. There is no such thing as truth in that sense. A logically ascertained premise, yes. You can write a book on My Search for Truth' or God knows what - My Experiments with Truth’.

In this particular time frame (now), all events are independent, and there is no continuity among them. Each event is an independent frame, but we are linking up all these and trying to channel the movement of life in a particular direction for our ulterior motives. But actually you have no way of controlling the events. They are outside of you. All one can do is establish a relationship with particular events, or put them all together and create a tremendous structure of thought and philosophy.

What is “ultimate truth”? Infallible? Unchanging? Science is neither.

The goal is objective truth, but that is not to say science produces objective truth with any degree of certainty. We use perception to verify the objectivity of a thing – in doing so we are forced to inherently doubt how purely ‘objective’ something can possibly be.

…yet products of perception. So, then, how can we be sure any truth transcends perception?

I wouldn’t go so far as “always”. We can say that something is probable or predictable to a degree, but change is a constant. Thus, even our objective truths will be less than certain.

I think science is more bent on developing ‘fixed’ ideas that can be observed, interpreted, and used as if universal, for practical purposes. So, perhaps science tells us what we can say about reality, as well as what can be reasonably presumed as, or about, objective reality (how things are).

It seems more like a methodology or set of methodologies than a proposition. I suppose one could place these methodologies in a (rather long) proposition and then add ‘are the ways to gain knowledge, period.’

Science is better than random - sometimes much, much better - at predicting what experiences you will have if you do this or that in the right sequences under the right conditions.

If you want to call that truth, then it’s truth.