Does science actualize truth?

[Ceridwen018]

I was merely saying that science doesn't have to actualize what is truth for it to be truth.
~Rex

Or does it?

What is truth? How can we isolate and define truth without the use of science?

 

[Yerda]

Interesting question. Do you have anything you would like to say Ceridwen? I'm not sure where to start.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Well...I would have to say that I think, in most cases anyhow, that truth must be backed up by science in order to be truth. Truth, to me, is something which can be agreed on for everyone, and which is 'true' for everyone.

I think maybe there are some truths out there which cannot be validated by science, but due to the different nature of these truths, they will never be able to be definitively defined as truth, because not everyone will agree.

 

[Rex]

Well...I would have to say that I think, in most cases anyhow, that truth must be backed up by science in order to be truth. Truth, to me, is something which can be agreed on for everyone, and which is 'true' for everyone.

I think maybe there are some truths out there which cannot be validated by science, but due to the different nature of these truths, they will never be able to be definitively defined as truth, because not everyone will agree.

Well now your talking about appealing truth as the agreement of the whole. If everyone says the sky is black then it wouldn't be true except for that group.

 

[Ceridwen018]

I don't mean that if a group can collectively agree on something, then it is true. As far as the sky being black, (unless it had really turned black...), that could be refuted by science. What I meant, was that truth which is supported by science can be (and perhaps should be) considered truth, because it is true for everyone, regardless if they believe it or not.

 

[Rex]

Well I really don't think science has to prove something for it to be truth. I heard this one example one time. Lets take unicorns. I think there are unicorns because I believe it to be true, you don't. But science cannont prove or disprove their existence. So until you can disprove then science has no bearing on the "truth", b/c it would be the "truth" for me, which brings me to the point of relativism.

Relativism states that the view that truth is relative and not absolute. It varies from people to people, time to time.

I'm not too sure where I stand on it but there it is.

[/end rambling]

 

[Yerda]

Well...I would have to say that I think, in most cases anyhow, that truth must be backed up by science in order to be truth. Truth, to me, is something which can be agreed on for everyone, and which is 'true' for everyone.

I think maybe there are some truths out there which cannot be validated by science, but due to the different nature of these truths, they will never be able to be definitively defined as truth, because not everyone will agree.

I'm not sure I understand. This being a religious forum, is this God related? As in the truth of its existance being backed up by science? Or have I missed the point?

 

[Ceridwen018]

I put it in the religious category because I figured some would base their truth on a god, etc. These types of discussions invariably seem to lead back to that sort of thing.

Rex,

As far as unicorns being disproven, a lack of evidence in science constitutes lack of existence. However, just because science doesn't have any evidence for it now, doesn't mean something won't be discovered in the future.

Ultimately, I think it is impossible for universal truth to be discerned.

 

[Yerda]

Truth is maybe not as objective a concept as we would like to believe.

 

[Named]

Also, our predilection of truth strongly affects our research and physical observation of the world. Creationist scientists, anyone? lol

This is why I’m strongly opposed to an individual pursuing a scientific profession with any assumption of truth governing their mind.

Science is the study of the physical world; finding the 'truth', admittedly a never-ending endeavour. There is no bias, there is no predetermined goal- that goes against the very nature and purpose of science.
But if we cross to Creationist scientists (following through on the example ), they do not search for truth, they already believe they know it. They've reached their conclusion!
Then what is their mission? To force, by any means, a seemingly coherent path to that conclusion... to Creation, and the other ludicrous biblical accounts.
Question AND answer... Figure out the working, ey? Only problem is; the possible paths are limitless. What is the purpose?
If a bias as strong as this holds you captive, anything and everything you see will (conveniently) be interpreted in the way to PROVE what you KNOW to be the 'truth'. All your research, all your knowledge, will be funnelled through this predetermined conclusion -_-
All of their work is invalidated by this blindingly evident, unwavering predilection.

I apologise if this isn't a relative contribution to the topic Me gets sidetracked easily... ^^

[I haven't posted here in a month or two Excuse the neglect <bows>]

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think we can only be certain of the truth in that which we can observe. So for example, if I touch something cold, I know for a fact that that thing feels cold to me. That is truth, and even if the thing I'm touching is "actually" hot, it is still true to say that it feels cold to me. Since science records and calibrates observation, I believe it is the only method by which we can hope to discern truth.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A truth is either (a) a formally provable a priori proposition (e.g., 2 > 1), or an a posteriori proposition that is in conformity with reality. The latter is necessarily approximate.

The proposition (U ::= Unicorns Exist) is either accurate or inaccurate, and is so irrespective of your views, my views, or, indeed, the views of science.

 

[Orthodox]

Hi everyone,

Just thought I would point a few things out here.

Ceridwen you said:

Ultimately, I think it is impossible for universal truth to be discerned.

This is itself a universal or absolute truth claim. You are making a universal claim that universal truths are impossible to discern. This is obviously self-contradictory.

Mr Spinkles you said:

Since science records and calibrates observation, I believe it is the only method by which we can hope to discern truth.

The claim that science is the only way to discern truth is itself an unscientific truth claim. How would you test your assertion scientifically? It is a philosophical assertion, and a self-contradictory one at that.

Your assertion sounds a lot like David Hume’s Principle of Empirical Verifiability. He said that any claim that did not conform to his principle was ‘meaningless’ and ‘ought to be committed to the flames’. His principle goes as follows: To be true a thing must be either,

1. Self evident (ie. A fish is a fish)
2. Or empirically (scientifically) verifiable.

As you can see Hume’s own principle does not conform to itself. It is not self-evident and is not empirically verifiable. According to itself Hume's principle is 'meaningless' and 'ought to be committed to the flames.

Duet you said:

A truth is either (a) a formally provable a priori proposition (e.g., 2 > 1), or an a posteriori proposition that is in conformity with reality. The latter is necessarily approximate.

I’m pretty sure that you just re-stated Hume’s Principle of Empirical Verifiability. Again, this is a self-contradictory position to hold. It’s unfortunate that Hume wasn’t more sceptical about scepticism.

I think the only rational thing is to conclude that truth is absolute and discovered in both science and philosophy. I think we carry a priori intuitions (for lack of a better word) put in place by God. An example would be the Law of non-contradiction.

Orthodox

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I’m pretty sure that you just re-stated Hume’s Principle of Empirical Verifiability.

And I'm pretty sure that I did not.

Again, this is a self-contradictory position to hold.

You construct strawmen with such alacrity that you tend to trip over the bailing wire.

I think the only rational thing is to conclude that truth is absolute and discovered in both science and philosophy.

You confuse the thing with a statement about the thing: the map is not the territory.

I think we carry a priori intuitions (for lack of a better word) put in place by God.

Since you think everything is 'put in place by God', the statement is no more informative than it is evidenced.

 

[Ceridwen018]

This is itself a universal or absolute truth claim. You are making a universal claim that universal truths are impossible to discern. This is obviously self-contradictory.

Perhaps. Then again, that's just my opinion...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

A truth is either (a) a formally provable a priori proposition (e.g., 2 > 1), or an a posteriori proposition that is in conformity with reality. The latter is necessarily approximate.

Well said!

The claim that science is the only way to discern truth is itself an unscientific truth claim. How would you test your assertion scientifically?

We have Sally, Mark, and Chris attempt to predict how many crocodile eggs will hatch as males, and how many will hatch as females. Sally uses science to come to the conclusion that, given the temperature of the nest, all the hatchlings should be female. Mark prays for several hours and reads the Bible, and says that God told him only half the hatchlings will be female. Chris rolls a die, and says that because the die shows the number four, only four of the hatchlings will be female.

The crocodile eggs hatch, and we record the results. Repeat as many times as necessary to realize that science is a better way to understand reality than "non-science".

 

[The Voice of Reason]

A truth is either (a) a formally provable a priori proposition (e.g., 2 > 1), or an a posteriori proposition that is in conformity with reality. The latter is necessarily approximate.

Working within either of these definitions of truth (taken from Webster's):
Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been; or shall be.
- or -
freedom from falsehood; veracity.

I would agree with Deut completely and unequivocally. Unfortunately, there are other definitions for "Truth". I think that Ceridwen did, indeed, intend these definitions of the word.

TVOR

 

[Orthodox]

Mr Spinkles,

We have Sally, Mark, and Chris attempt to predict how many crocodile eggs will hatch as males, and how many will hatch as females. Sally uses science to come to the conclusion that, given the temperature of the nest, all the hatchlings should be female. Mark prays for several hours and reads the Bible, and says that God told him only half the hatchlings will be female. Chris rolls a die, and says that because the die shows the number four, only four of the hatchlings will be female.

The crocodile eggs hatch, and we record the results. Repeat as many times as necessary to realize that science is a better way to understand reality than "non-science".

Firstly, the Scientific Method, which you appear to advocate, is not what you said earlier; "Since science records and calibrates observation, I believe it is the only method by which we can hope to discern truth." The Scientific Method presupposes, along with other things, the philosophical notion known as the Principle of Uniformity. Utilising the PU the SM assumes that if gravity works today it will also work tomorrow (given the same conditions, of course). This is inductive methodology. Science, as we know it, would not function if it were not for the philosophical assumptions it makes.

I don’t think that your analogy proves that science is the only way to discern truth. Primarily for the reason that it is just an example of the Scientific Method which, as I showed above, rests upon various philosophical assumptions (other examples being the Principle of Causality and the Law of Non-Contradiction).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don’t think that your analogy proves that science is the only way to discern truth.

There is no way to prove that reading tea leaves or Unicorn droppings is incapable of discerning truth. Given a binary proposition, even a dirty penney will discern truth half of the time. Abduction and science - the layering of peer-reviewed, testable theories, the outcome of which is independent of the dogmatic concerns of the tester - seems at least marginally preferable.

Primarily for the reason that it is just an example of the Scientific Method which, as I showed above, rests upon various philosophical assumptions

The statement: science is not the only way to discern truth because the Scientific Method ... rests upon various philosophical assumptions. is clearly a non sequitur.

 

[Orthodox]

Duet,

I am not saying that science cannot discern truth. I think perhaps you are confused. All I am saying is that science (I'll define it as that which discovers truth via repeatable observation)cannot be the only discerner of truth. Logic and various principles that are presupposed by science being examples of this.

The statement: science is not the only way to discern truth because the Scientific Method ... rests upon various philosophical assumptions. is clearly a non sequitur.

no it is not.

Orthodox