Science, religion and the truth

[cladking]

I'm not suggesting that science necessarily is such a template, just that it tends to uncover (proper) truths more easily than any other method.

I believe in reality so it follows I believe in "truth". The problem is that just as reality is seen from only a single perspective, "truth" is a perspective as well. It must be defined.

Outside of metaphysics there is no truth in science either.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Most of the best astronomers might disagree with that.

I'm sure they would, as the sun does move, but not from our perspective.
It moves with the whole galaxy in fact, but we have never "observed" that,
and only by measurement can we even imply that it does.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Most of the best astronomers might disagree with that.

Some people think the wind "blows" too.
But the wind doesn't "blow", the wind "sucks", lol.

Seriously, its the pressure differential between high and low pressure weather systems,
the low side creates a vacuum and the higher air pressure is literally sucked into it
seeking balance, like all energy systems.

Including ourselves.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@mikkel_the_dane For now I’m calling what people think they know from science “science dogma.”

A characteristic of dogmatism, is its unquestionable nature.
Questioning is a core tenet of science.

So to speak of "science dogma" when refering to scientific knowledge, is self-contradicting.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why would you need to do that? The statement is true. There are a host of similar statements that are true.

Why is it relevant if behavior is replicated? And if it were, would it be a truth that behavior is replicated?

Well, if you go for inter-subjective behavior in regards to the parts you regard objective as independent of individual thought and feelings, then you might value replication.

So I will try something. Remember to do it inter-subjectively or individually as subjective, because words are apparently connected to other human behavior and other parts of the world.

The snow is white.
Gravity is a physical process.
2 plus 2 is 11 works in base 3.
Some people believe in universal human rights.
It is illegal in some places to drunk drive.
How I understand another human depend in part on mentalizing.
Superman is a super hero.
I like philosophy.
I think killing another human is wrong.
I personally find comfort in believing in God.
I don't know what objective reality is independent of my experience of it.

Now you can check all of these, but apparently you don't check them in exactly the same sense. And for some of them you would properly do it differently as you.
You can use truth, but you don't have to use truth for any of these. You simply list how you would make sense of them and work out how they work.
Now as far as I can tell all of these are part of how the everyday world works in practice.

Now I don't need you to agree with me, but all of the seems to be some kinds of facts, though not the same kind. I left some out, e.g. I need water to live.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

Some people think the wind "blows" too.
But the wind doesn't "blow", the wind "sucks", lol.

Seriously, its the pressure differential between high and low pressure weather systems,
the low side creates a vacuum and the higher air pressure is literally sucked into it
seeking balance, like all energy systems.

Including ourselves.

Or it is the fact that a higher pressure region (more force per area) next to a lower pressure region (less force per area) will produce a force in the direction of the lower pressure, accelerating the air in that direction.

A vacuum does NOT suck. The pressure of a gas pushes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are TWO kinds of "truth".
One kind is relative, the other is absolute.
ALL things are "true" relatively, but all things are NOT "true" absolutely.

Does the sun rise ?
YES it does, but only relatively, as it just "appears" that way from our perspective.
NO it absolutely does not, as the sun never moves.

Only as long as the sun exists. Even absolute seem to have a limit.

Now of course this relies on the universe being independently of you as it appears to you. I.e. e.g no Boltzmann Brain, trickster gods and what not. So absolute is even a kind of relative.
There is a reason it is called methodological naturalism and that it is not the same as philosophical naturalism.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A characteristic of dogmatism, is its unquestionable nature.
Questioning is a core tenet of science.

So to speak of "science dogma" when refering to scientific knowledge, is self-contradicting.

Well, there are strong philosophical principles in science, if that makes it better.
Remember the cosmological principle.
So yes, you can call it differently but you can't remove human cognition from science and thus we get rules and what not.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

Well, if you go for inter-subjective behavior in regards to the parts you regard objective as independent of individual thought and feelings, then you might value replication.

So I will try something. Remember to do it inter-subjectively or individually as subjective, because words are apparently connected to other human behavior and other parts of the world.

The snow is white.

Descriptive of the ability of small flakes of frozen water to scatter visible light.

Gravity is a physical process.

Descriptive of our ability to measure and model it.

2 plus 2 is 11 works in base 3.

A matter of notation.

Some people believe in universal human rights.

Something that can be verified by a poll.

It is illegal in some places to drunk drive.

Since 'illegal' is societally defined, this is testable by considering the laws in different locations.

How I understand another human depend in part on mentalizing.

A bit vague. Needs clarification.

Superman is a super hero.

Only meaningful in a context of a fictional story.

I like philosophy.
I think killing another human is wrong.
I personally find comfort in believing in God.

All questions that can be verified by observing behavior, or by a brain scan.

I don't know what objective reality is independent of my experience of it.

Again, this is potentially verifiable by a brain scan. Your knowledge or lack thereof is the point in question.

Now you can check all of these, but apparently you don't check them in exactly the same sense. And for some of them you would properly do it differently as you.

Well, the ones requiring watching behavior or brain scans are less certain given our abilities to probe at this point.

Now, whether philoosphy is good is a matter of opinion. Whether *I* like philosophy or not may well be a matter of fact.

Similarly for some of the other statements here.

You can use truth, but you don't have to use truth for any of these. You simply list how you would make sense of them and work out how they work.
Now as far as I can tell all of these are part of how the everyday world works in practice.

Now I don't need you to agree with me, but all of the seems to be some kinds of facts, though not the same kind. I left some out, e.g. I need water to live.

More a question of biology.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... Good post ...
A bit vague. Needs clarification.
...

Simply google mentalization and meta-cognition. There are a host of words connected to how to understand oneself and others.
All humans don't understand themselves individually and other humans in the exact same manner. I.e. cognitive diversity. I am one example of that, I am an Aspie.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Jim]

@mikkel_the_dane I’m thinking that anything anyone can say against God beliefs applies equally to belief in absolute or objective truth. The psychological and social reasons for those beliefs, and their harmful uses, are all the same. In fact, their harmful uses, and the reasons for using them, are two sides of the same coin.

What behavior does that translate into, for you to practice?

I’m thinking that campaigning against excuses and camouflage for harmful behavior, while practicing the same behavior, as I have been doing sometimes and maybe you have too, might be self-defending self-defeating. It’s a habit that’s hard to break.

Sometimes I see truth (not objective or absolute of course) in what the spelling corrector substitutes in the place of what I meant to say.

 

[Polymath257]

Simply google mentalization and meta-cognition. There are a host of words connected to how to understand oneself and others.
All humans don't understand themselves individually and other humans in the exact same manner. I.e. cognitive diversity. I am one example of that, I am an Aspie.

Welcome. I had strong spectrum signs when I was young, but decided to spend time learning how people relate. Sort of a scientific investigation.

Now, some people even say I am social. Of course, that is over 40 years later.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Or it is the fact that a higher pressure region (more force per area) next to a lower pressure region (less force per area) will produce a force in the direction of the lower pressure, accelerating the air in that direction.

A vacuum does NOT suck. The pressure of a gas pushes.

No, sorry.....vacuums are "filled".
without a vacuum, there is no "pushes".

 

[Polymath257]

No, sorry.....vacuums are "filled".
without a vacuum, there is no "pushes".

Vacuums have nothing in them. It is the 'push' from the pressure of the gas that moves the gas. Ultimately, it is simply the motion of the molecules in the gas that make it spread out.

 

[Jim]

Thinking of it as “sucking” or “pulling”
is purely metaphorical. Like the LUCA.

 

[sealchan]

Okay, something simple. The grammatical status of the words "the truth". Those words means that there is one version of the truth. So there can't be different versions of the truth. That is simple to test: 2 examples are given now.

Someone: The truth of how the world is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and think differently about the truth than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the truth as only one truth for the world.

Someone: The one true God is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and believe differently about God than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the one true God.

Yeah, it is that simple. In practice both science and religion are limited as it comes to the truth. I know, how to test for it, because I accept for the subjective subjective results as valid evidence. For the objective I accept objective evidence as valid, but I try not to confuse the 2.
That is how I learned to do it and I accept that you can do subjectivity and objectivity differently, but I will still just check if what you do appears to be subjective regardless of you claim science or religion, how ever you do it.

Regards
Mikkel

I think I would be in agreement with you that although we must strive to recognize subjective and objective we cannot escape either. Those who want to make it simpler than that are doing violence to "the truth".

 

[sealchan]

Right. What he believes is irrelevant. But he is pointing out something that should be considered since it is relevant to the discussion.

The truth is the truth whether or not someone believes it. So belief is irrelevant.

How can belief be irrelevant in a conversation between two people as to what each believes is the truth?

 

[sealchan]

Let me give an example that actually happened in my life.

Suppose two people look at a carpet. One sees it to be light blue and the other sees it to be grey.

Does that mean there is no truth to the properties of the carpet when interacting with light?

It means that, as with determining ones velocity in gravitational space, ones (subjective) frame of reference is always also relevant.

 

[Polymath257]

How can belief be irrelevant in a conversation between two people as to what each believes is the truth?

It *is* relevant to a discussion of what each believes to be the truth. It isn't relevant to what is the truth. In fact, one way to distinguish the truth is that it holds even if nobody believes in it. So, the Earth rotated even before people believed it rotated. Diseases were caused by bacteria before anyone knew bacteria exist. Belief isn't relevant for the truth.

Now, beliefs *are* relevant to how people act. They *are* relevant to what they will accept (whether truthful or not). They *are* relevant for a conversation about beliefs. They may even be relevant to whether we can ever know any truths. They just aren't relevant to what is and is not true.

 

[Polymath257]

It means that, as with determining ones velocity in gravitational space, ones (subjective) frame of reference is always also relevant.

Sorry, but relativity isn't about subjective vs. objective viewpoints. Each frame of reference is objective. And it is possible to directly calculate what one frame will detect given what another frame measures. Further, there are invariants that don't depend on the frame (Einstein originally wanted to call his theory the 'theory of invariants'). Those invariants are an *objective* that *all* frames agree upon.