Truth in Science (verse, religion, taoism)

[Sunstone]

In science, the relationship of a theorem to reality is like the relationship of a map to its terrain.

Just as a map can be more or less accurate (truthful), a theorem can be more or less accurate (truthful).

Truth in science is a quality of the relationship between the theorem and reality, between the map and its terrain.

An accurate theorem is true, just in the same manner that an accurate map is true.

An inaccurate theorem is false, just in the same manner that an inaccurate map is false.

There are no absolute truths in science, just as there are no absolute truths in cartography.

In cartography, a map is more or less true. It is never absolutely true. (Consider: An absolutely true map would be identical to the terrain itself, which would be impractical if not impossible.)

In science, a theorem is more or less true. It is never absolutely true.

Comments?

[Master Vigil]

There is no absolute truth. Even in religion. I believe science and religion should not argue over the same things. The way of the physical world is for science to deal with. The way of the spirit is for religion to deal with. For science cannot detect or understand the "self." And religion cannot prove the ways of the physical universe.

[Ceridwen018]

I really like that analogy Sunstone.

[Sunstone]

Thank you, Ceridwen. I’m happy that you found it apt. You’re a quick study.

Have you considered that the analogy can be extended further than I extended it there without it breaking down?

The reason the analogy can be extended is simple:

Both a map and a theorem use symbols, and all symbols (regardless of whether they are map symbols, words, mathematics, or any other kind of symbol) have the same general relationship to reality. What you can say for one class of symbol generally holds true for the other classes of symbol.

Comments?

[Ceridwen018]

Do you mean like, all maps use the same symbols, just as all theorems are conceived through the same methods, etc.? Therefore creating an objective constant.

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is a well worn anology, and one made somewhat famous by semanticist Korzybski's dictum concerning language: "The map is not the territory." The analogy captures the idea of scientific theory as an approximate explanation. It does not, however, capture the idea of scientific theory as a testable explanation which is, of course, key.

[Sunstone]

Ceridwen writes,

“Do you mean like, all maps use the same symbols, just as all theorems are conceived through the same methods, etc.? Therefore creating an objective constant.”

Not quite. I didn’t mean to give that impression. Instead, I meant that all words are symbolic, all map symbols are symbolic, all mathematical symbols are symbolic, etc. And I also meant that all symbols operate the same regardless of whether they are word, map symbol, mathematical symbol, or whatnot.

Take the word “barn”. The word “barn” is not a barn. It is merely a symbol for a barn. In the same manner, the symbol on my map for a building is not the building itself, but merely a symbol. And, likewise, the mathematical symbol “1” is not one, but merely a symbol either for one thing or (in some circumstances) for the concept of one thing.

Incidentally, the basic relationship of symbol to reality (or terrain) seems to be expressed in the opening lines of the Tao Te Ching: “The Tao that can be named is not the Tao”. The Tao that can be symbolized (“named”) is not the Tao. To extrapolate: anything a person can say or think about the Tao is not the Tao because a person’s words and thoughts about the Tao are mere symbols, and the symbol is not the terrain. At least, that’s how I understand that line. What do you think, Ceridwen? Is there a parallel here (however trivial) between truth in science and truth in Taoism?


Duet writes,

“The analogy captures the idea of scientific theory as an approximate explanation. It does not, however, capture the idea of scientific theory as a testable explanation which is, of course, key.”

A map can be tested.

But are you saying something more subtle here? Namely, that a map is not an “explanation” in the same sense that a theorem is an “explanation”? Put differently, are you saying that the map is merely a “description”, whereas a theorem is an “explanation”?

I would think that because terms in science are defined operationally, they bear much the same “explanatory” relationship to reality that symbols on a map bear to its terrain. But what do you think?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Duet writes,

“The analogy captures the idea of scientific theory as an approximate explanation. It does not, however, capture the idea of scientific theory as a testable explanation which is, of course, key.”

A map can be tested.

And, an analogy can be stretched.