Truth: A Quest Not a Journey (science, Roman)

[coberst]

Truth: A Quest Not a Journey

Karl Popper is noted for having focused on the scientific ‘truth’ sought by induction; an inductive theory is submitted to empirical facts not to prove the theory’s truth, but for the purpose of eliminating those theories wherein a scientific fact proves the falsity of the theory on-the-spot.

Can such a model be applicable to social and political thought? Absolutely not! (I think)

Social and political thought is a quest and not a journey. Journey implies a destination whereas quest implies the process of searching. There is no destination, no end point, and no terminus for the search when seeking ‘a truth’ for social and political thought. Unlike inductive reasoning as applied to objects, social and political theories are either bad, good or better, they are never ‘truth’ in the sense of the methodology of ‘normal science’.

Social and political thought needs criticism plus dialogue/dialectic techniques as a functioning ‘forever’ process. Induction leads to social and political theories that face, not destruction on-the-spot but destruction by a ‘thousand cuts’. A fact that chips away at such a theory brings the theory’s legitimacy into question in certain areas encompassing the territory surveyed by the theory but no social and political theory can be complete, there are too many facets within the domain in question.

Obviously there are no certain truths, other than this statement, but there is a significant distance between truth for normal science and truth for social and political thought.

What do you think is the primary reason that normal science is so different from social and political thought? I think that the big difference is because normal science has only one principle set whereas social and political thought has multiple principle sets.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by coberst

What do you think is the primary reason that normal science is so different from social and political thought? I think that the big difference is because normal science has only one principle set whereas social and political thought has multiple principle sets.

Quite simply, there are no laws that determine what our opinions will be, at least none that we are capable of defining at the moment. Our thoughts are inherently chaotic in appearance, and appearances are everything.

[coberst]

In comparing normal science thought with social and political thought I think that the metaphor ‘thought is diamond’ is useful. I mean that by this metaphor the thought directed at solutions to a problem will encounter entities that have a diamond like quality.

When we examine a diamond under a white light while turning the diamond we see various facets of the diamond reflecting light. When we examine problems within normal science we find that the paradigm of that normal science restricts the view of the problem to just one facet. The scientist working within a paradigm examines only one facet whereas the social and political scientists must take into account all facets

[MaddLlama]

Originally Posted by coberst

What do you think is the primary reason that normal science is so different from social and political thought? I think that the big difference is because normal science has only one principle set whereas social and political thought has multiple principle sets.

If social and political opinions disagree with science, then I would venture to guess it's because social and political thought have been subverted by outmoded religious ideas.
But, as far as I know the members of society and in political office who keep thier distance from science is not that many. However, the fewest tend to be the loudest.

When we examine a diamond under a white light while turning the diamond we see various facets of the diamond reflecting light. When we examine problems within normal science we find that the paradigm of that normal science restricts the view of the problem to just one facet. The scientist working within a paradigm examines only one facet whereas the social and political scientists must take into account all facets

Umm.....do you know anything about science at all? Right now I would put my money on "no", since your statement is so wrong I can't even see straight now.

[coberst]

maddllama

You should read "The Structure of Scientific Rvolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. It is a great book well worth the effort.

[MaddLlama]

Read it already, not really a fan of his work.

[retrorich]

Truth: A Quest Not a Journey

Truth: A Trip Not a Trek