Truth in Science

I have been lamb-basted more than once on this forum for claiming that science is based on truth. I have been told that truth and science were incompatable.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wouldn't say that science is based upon "truth" per se, because really who can define truth in an empirical way? I would say it's more accurate to say that science is based on the observed phenomena around us. If empirically observable events are considered "truth" then yes, science is based upon "truth." But I wouldn't cross this with a philosophical or metaphysical meaning for the word "truth"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James R.,

ANS: We really never do. But that isn't the issue. It is the seeking of truth, which sometimes is nothing more that our best guess.

This post however goes to the statement that "Truth and Science" are incompatable and all that counts is the ability to make predictions.

While making predictions is pragmatic and useful, truth is even more valuable.

 

Science can be said as 'truth which appears as on today', but tomorrow it can change if new evidences are found. It is a truth but not the 'Fact' which has some base. It is not a truth even like 'Sun rises from the east' which is called a 'Universal Truth', because at least Sun's appearance of rising from the east is constand.

Any truth even scientific truth can't be considered as 'Fact' or absolute truth unless it fulfills the meaning of folowwing words;

"Therapies which have such undefined boundaries,
that they may at any time accept new remedies,
and may like wise retain or reject old remedies,
cannot offer the security necessary in service
of a patient,and in the intrest of science.
To create a therapy with sharply defined
boundaries,has been for a long time,
my endeavour"
.....By Dr.William.H.Schuessler,1874

 

James R.,

ANS: You aren't going to like this answer but it is true. YOU did!

Perhaps it was AD HOC in a heat of passion debate but you said exactly that.

 

Mac

I don't understand your extract. Do you think Scroedinger's comment supports your case for science producing truth? I don't think so, he was a pretty good philosopher and knew better. Hence his use of the word 'impose'.

 

Canute,

I had taken "impose" to mean to force upon others those conditions. I looked "impose" up in Webster and indeed it bears some negative conotations as well.

But assuming it were meant in its negative format it would seem to say scientist are "Defrauding" others by their imposition of their truth.

How do you translate the phrase?

 

I don't know the context of the quote, so I wouldn't like to guess exactly what he meant here. (He might just have meant that scientists must be truthful and sincere).

However it is absolutely accepted by every philosopher at least since Plato that science (i.e. systems of hypotheses based on observations of phenomena) cannot produce 'truth' about reality, or at least that if it does it cannot prove it. This is why idealism remains a possibility.

At a day to day level this is not a worry, since scientific hypotheses can be 'true' in the systematic sense of being consistent with their underlying axioms. However whether those axioms are true is unknown, so all consequent conclusions are also suspect, at least in principle.

This is what Plato was on about when he talked about the shadows on the cave wall being all our senses can know of reality.

Schroedinger was very aware of these epistemilogical and metaphysical issues. He thought about such things deeply. Consider this comment (not completely relevant but I like it):

"Nirvana is a state of pure blissful knowledge....It has nothing to do with the individual. The ego or its separation is an illusion. Indeed in a certain sense two ‘I’s’ are identical, namely, when one disregards all their special content—their Karma.....When a man dies, his karma lives and creates for itself another carrier." Erwin Schroedinger

 

strange how our best and brightest seem to engage in one form of crackpottery or another (Erwin Schroedinger)

perhaps the average scientist outta take note of this

 

Hmm. Have you considered the possibility that he knew a few things that you don't?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

you missed the sarcasm, canute. i do not think it crackpottery

lemme rephrase/elaborate

perhaps the average scientist outta take note of this and engage in some of their own. perhaps then, from a middling scientist, will they move on to be an exemplary one

 

James R.,

I would have to go search but I believe it was one of the spin-offs from spookz "Skeptic" series.

 

Sorry, I should have known that. It was late.

 

Nirvana(Moksha) is a state of pure blisssful knowledge....i.e we are free(unbonded) only in atomic or subatomic form.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Excellent Observation

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

 

Can you explain what you mean by 'no stages to the acceptance of truth' bit. I'm not disagreeing, just wondered what you meant.