3 of 8
3
Science isn’t truth
Posted: 03 August 2017 07:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24
CuthbertJ - 21 July 2017 11:31 AM

I’ve never heard anyone in a serious discussion equate science with truth. That’s like saying a hammer is a house. I would venture to guess most people who say science is truth are religionists who are trying to argue religion is better than science because science isn’t truth but religion is. Silly of course.

You didn’t seem to have that problem in another thread about truth - http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19241/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2017 10:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4074
Joined  2009-10-21
JohnH - 03 August 2017 07:55 AM
CuthbertJ - 21 July 2017 11:31 AM

I’ve never heard anyone in a serious discussion equate science with truth. That’s like saying a hammer is a house. I would venture to guess most people who say science is truth are religionists who are trying to argue religion is better than science because science isn’t truth but religion is. Silly of course.

You didn’t seem to have that problem in another thread about truth - http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19241/

That thread is about understanding what science is. The same problem you seem to be having here.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2017 10:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24
JohnH - 20 July 2017 11:09 AM

It seems common to equate science and truth in many discussions and to regard science as a search for truth. There are widespread challenges to “prove” that something is “true”.
Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery points out that in scientific terms it is impossible to confirm anything as an absolute truth. He preferred to use the expression “xxx corresponds to the facts” rather than xxx is true. The objections to Popper are more to his recommendations on how to conduct science (using falsifiability) to the exclusion of all other methods than his underlying objection to “truth”.
It would be acceptable to Popper to say that scientific knowledge corresponds to the facts but not that scientific knowledge is true. Scientific knowledge can thus be challenged by discovering more facts to see if it still corresponds to the new facts. A key scientific method is to use current knowledge to identify the unknown or untested and make predictions. Verifying predictions, especially if they differ between different theories help create new facts and reinforce our confidence in our knowledge (as pointed out by Popper in chapter 3 of The Logic of Scientific Discovery).
Science, thus is not about absolute truths as much as it is about predictability.

Welcome to the real world, too bad your stay here will likely be fleeting.

Oh, by the way, the scientific method is far more applicable in the real world than say religion or even philosophy.

Try building a 500,000 lb. jet airliner or a semi-conducting transistors that make modern society itself possible through prayer or thought devoid of practice.

What’s your next deep revelation, that water is wet or heat is hot.

sl…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2017 04:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1466
Joined  2016-12-24

Water has memory   tongue wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2017 07:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7757
Joined  2009-02-26
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 03 August 2017 04:40 PM

Water has memory   tongue wink

Only when it’s frozen.

But water is a truly remarkable compound chemical.

[ Edited: 03 August 2017 08:12 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2017 08:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24
Lausten - 03 August 2017 10:28 AM

That thread is about understanding what science is. The same problem you seem to be having here.

So are you saying science IS truth?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2017 09:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24
DougC - 03 August 2017 10:37 AM

Welcome to the real world, too bad your stay here will likely be fleeting.
Quite possibly if intelligent life doesn’t show up soon

Oh, by the way, the scientific method is far more applicable in the real world than say religion or even philosophy.
Did I ever say different?

Try building a 500,000 lb. jet airliner or a semi-conducting transistors that make modern society itself possible through prayer or thought devoid of practice.
Where have I given the impression that I would think that is possible? Jet airliners obey the scientific Newton’s laws which are, for example, sufficient to design aircraft by predicting the forces needed to move them through the air and lift them off the ground. Newton’s laws predicted half of the gravitationally induced curvature of light measured by Eddington, thereby favoring Einstein’s theory and demonstrating Newton incorrect (a.k.a. not true). However, Newton’s laws provide “close enough” predictions that engineers continue to use them for relatively slow object like jet airliners. Prediction, not truth

What’s your next deep revelation, that water is wet or heat is hot.
Heat arises in anything warmer than 0 degrees Kelvin which is about minus 273 degrees centigrade so I wouldn’t suggest that heat is hot. I may however suggest that you are confusing somewhat unrelated terms. Heat is a measure of energy whereas hot is a subjective description of temperature.

Like several others here, you seem to jump to unwarranted conclusions (that I am evangelizing or diminishing science?) and rant in derogatory terms completely out of the range of what is really being communicated.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2017 10:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1466
Joined  2016-12-24
JohnH - 03 August 2017 08:50 PM
Lausten - 03 August 2017 10:28 AM

That thread is about understanding what science is. The same problem you seem to be having here.

So are you saying science IS truth?

Well if you are trying to be serious, you might start by defining what kind of “truth” - absolute, provision, <.99 certain -

Or what about everyday truth and honesty?
There’s the truth of honestly representing what scientific studies have written or claimed.

There’s the reality that this Earth does operate by specific knowable rules and processes - that is a “truth” that scientists strive to understand as well as possible.


Isaac Asimov wrote an excellent essay that speaks directly to this question of assessing “Truth” in science - and the conceit of certain sorts that claim that because scientific knowledge is never absolutely complete, that the notion of Truth no longer holds any importance, or something like that.  They never do quite explain it, but than casting doubt and derision regarding serious science is their only goal anyways so serious detailed explanations are not to be expected and none will be offered.

The Relativity of Wrong

By Isaac Asimov
The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44

I RECEIVED a letter the other day. It was handwritten in crabbed penmanship so that it was very difficult to read. Nevertheless, I tried to make it out just in case it might prove to be important. In the first sentence, the writer told me he was majoring in English literature, but felt he needed to teach me science. (I sighed a bit, for I knew very few English Lit majors who are equipped to teach me science, but I am very aware of the vast state of my ignorance and I am prepared to learn as much as I can from anyone, so I read on.)

It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the universe straight.

I didn’t go into detail in the matter, but what I meant was that we now know the basic rules governing the universe, together with the gravitational interrelationships of its gross components, as shown in the theory of relativity worked out between 1905 and 1916. We also know the basic rules governing the subatomic particles and their interrelationships, since these are very neatly described by the quantum theory worked out between 1900 and 1930. What’s more, we have found that the galaxies and clusters of galaxies are the basic units of the physical universe, as discovered between 1920 and 1930.

These are all twentieth-century discoveries, you see.

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern “knowledge” is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. “If I am the wisest man,” said Socrates, “it is because I alone know that I know nothing.” the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.

My answer to him was, “John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that “right” and “wrong” are absolute; that everything that isn’t perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.

However, I don’t think that’s so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so. ...

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

[ Edited: 03 August 2017 10:05 PM by Citizenschallenge-v.3 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2017 06:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1466
Joined  2016-12-24

John did you try reading Isaac’s article, does any of that make any sense to you?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2017 09:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24

Would you argue with a spambot?

That is the intellectual level that climate change deniers operate on, you’re not going to inform them of anything because they aren’t here to listen to anyone.

They are here to insert a paid for message that denies the evidence.

Period…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2017 11:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24
DougC - 05 August 2017 09:56 AM

That is the intellectual level that climate change deniers operate on, you’re not going to inform them of anything because they aren’t here to listen to anyone.

They are here to insert a paid for message that denies the evidence.

Perhaps you and others of a like mind would care to explain what led you to believe I am a climate change denier?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2017 01:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7757
Joined  2009-02-26
Adamski - 21 July 2017 04:42 PM
Write4U - 21 July 2017 03:37 PM

Science is the methodical inquiry of Universal values and functions.

What pathway do you use to get to truth Writer?

Depends on the area of inquiry, doesn’t it.

Under the gravitational force of the earth at sea level,

Is it true that a collecting of H2O molecules at say 20 C forms a substance we call water (liquid)?
Is it true that a collection of H2O molecules at -1 C forms a substance we call ice (solid)?
Is it true, that a collection of H2O molecules at 101 C forms a substance we call a vapor (gaseous)?

Thus can we say that given similar conditions elsewhere, this would also hold true?

Can we say that the table of elements describes the composition of known atomic structures and holds true throughout the universe?

Can we say that E = Mc^2 holds true throughout the entire universe?

We know many truths at either local or universal scales. We don’t know them all, yet. But knowledge of mathematics and functions will eventually lead us to a universal common denominator, but which is expressed dependant on local conditions.

IMO, the term Potential as “that which may become reality” is a universal truth, it is a common denominator of all related (relative) values and functions, regardless of prevailing conditions everywhere, even in the abstract.

[ Edited: 06 August 2017 10:29 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2017 03:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  504
Joined  2011-09-13
JohnH - 03 August 2017 07:55 AM
CuthbertJ - 21 July 2017 11:31 AM

I’ve never heard anyone in a serious discussion equate science with truth. That’s like saying a hammer is a house. I would venture to guess most people who say science is truth are religionists who are trying to argue religion is better than science because science isn’t truth but religion is. Silly of course.

You didn’t seem to have that problem in another thread about truth - http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19241/

Science itself is never defined as truth but the study of science is as close to truth that humanity can reach.  Science issues its finding in degree of probability, nothing more, nothing less.  NUFF SAID.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2017 05:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7757
Joined  2009-02-26
deros - 05 August 2017 03:00 PM
JohnH - 03 August 2017 07:55 AM
CuthbertJ - 21 July 2017 11:31 AM

I’ve never heard anyone in a serious discussion equate science with truth. That’s like saying a hammer is a house. I would venture to guess most people who say science is truth are religionists who are trying to argue religion is better than science because science isn’t truth but religion is. Silly of course.

You didn’t seem to have that problem in another thread about truth - http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19241/

Science itself is never defined as truth but the study of science is as close to truth that humanity can reach.  Science issues its finding in degree of probability, nothing more, nothing less.  NUFF SAID.

Isn’t this degree of probability expressed as “confidence” i.e. “with high confidence”?

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2017 06:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  924
Joined  2016-01-24
JohnH - 05 August 2017 11:47 AM
DougC - 05 August 2017 09:56 AM

That is the intellectual level that climate change deniers operate on, you’re not going to inform them of anything because they aren’t here to listen to anyone.

They are here to insert a paid for message that denies the evidence.

Perhaps you and others of a like mind would care to explain what led you to believe I am a climate change denier?

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19424/

Your own words idiot…

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 8
3