Is the truth lilmited to what can be known through scientific method?

[sandandfoam]

Hi. Just dropped in with a quickie
Do you think that truth is limited to that which is knowable through the scientific method?
Myself I don't think so. I don't consider my view in any way anti-science. I just believe other aspects of being human give rise to truth and that science alone is too narrow to capture the breadth of being human. For example art, poetry and history give rise to truth.
Thoughts?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The scientific world has never delt in "Truth" At best it deals in things that can be demonstrated.
It is always open to revision.

Truth will alway remain subjective in any sphere.
One might submit with some accuracy that "Truth" is never provable.

 

[Caladan]

I dont believe science is in search for 'the truth', science is about exploring and researching existing phenomena and understanding these phenomena as much as possible. for example, there is no 'truth' of gravity, it is simply a physical law, a reality.
the concept of 'truth' is very problematic, because we distant it as something lofty, while essentially the facts of the matter are right where we are. science seeks the lawfulness of the universe, which essentially has always existed. religion, art, and music can express 'truths', or 'little truths' and 'bigger truths', sometimes subjective sometimes transcendental. sometimes half the picture, and sometimes, just sometimes a bigger picture.
Marcus Aurelius said: "If you see things as they are here and now, you have seen everything that has happened from all eternity."

 

[sandandfoam]

Dan and Terry, I agree with you both. My understanding of the scientific project seems in line with yours - provisional understanding unfolding over time. Situated and evolving but forever provisional.
Thanks for the input, I wasn't sure I'd be agreed with,

 

[Sunstone]

Let's begin with a simple truth: Most definitions of truth are squirrelly.

Especially, truth with a capital "T", as in Truth. The definitions of that sort of truth -- absolute truth -- tend to be little more than propaganda in so far as there is no adequate, reliable method or process of arriving at that sort of truth. At worse, I simply define whatever I whimsically wish to be ultimate reality as "the Truth" -- as absolute truth.

If science deals with any kind of truth at all -- an maybe it doesn't -- then it deals with truth defined as a property of the relationship between a proposition and that to which the proposition refers. That kind of truth is conditional. There are also adequate processes of arriving at it -- and those processes are the various scientific methods.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

Do you think that truth is limited to that which is knowable through the scientific method?

Obviously not, because there are vast fields of endeavor that science is totally incapble of addressing, such as religion and love!

For example, if you're married, do you think you can prove scientifically that you and your spouse love each other, objectively DISproving that neither of you is acting for other, possibly ulterior motives? I think not!

Science explains the how of existence.

Religion, for example, explains the Who and why, topics that science is generally unable to answer.

Simple as that.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[dust1n]

Hi. Just dropped in with a quickie
Do you think that truth is limited to that which is knowable through the scientific method?
Myself I don't think so. I don't consider my view in any way anti-science. I just believe other aspects of being human give rise to truth and that science alone is too narrow to capture the breadth of being human. For example art, poetry and history give rise to truth.
Thoughts?

Nope. 'Thought experiments?'