Science does not reveal truth

[AProudLefty]

That's false. He's wrong, and you too if you believe that nonsense.


Try it for yourself. :Is it true that: "Science doesn't reveal truth"?
If so, how did you arrive at that truth?

OldFatGuy, or Paul Sutter, I don't care who answers.

Looks like Paul Contradicted himself, oops!

Paul: "I’m not the one to tell you what truth is". And yet you made the claim that "Science cannot reveal the truth"? So you can't tell us if it's true??

So Paul can't tell us, according to Paul, whether or not it's true that "science cannot reveal truth".

It would be better if Paul just kept silent on the matter, it would be more efficient.

Spoiler alert: It's self-evident that we can know true from false, it's implicit in every single utterance we make with the intent to communicate.

That's the gist of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

 

[Glitch]

Is your claim "None reflect absolute truth of our physical world", an "absolute truth of our physical world?"
If not, then why claim it's true or relevant?
If so, then you contradicted yourself.

Fact:
Humans of sound mind can know reality through our senses, through evidence/observation of reality. That's what knowing IS.

Either you can observe reality, or you cannot.

And it's self-evidently true that as we make this bold declaration on an internet forum "Either you can observe reality or you cannot", we had to observe reality to make it...we already accepted it as true, whether we like it or not.

Yet our reality is altered through those very same senses. Your perception and someone else's may be completely different, even though you may be observing the same event. That is one of the reasons we developed so many different ways of sensing the universe. We can't trust the accuracy of our own senses.

 

[American]

That's nice.

Keep in mind, I don't think he (or anyone who works in the philosophy of science) thinks you can use this to arbitrarily deny specific scientific claims that you personally just happen to dislike.

You should also be careful when bowdlerizing an entire academic field. If you're really interested in these issues, this might help you out.
https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Reali...s=philosophy+of+science&qid=1572372460&sr=8-3



It's close enough.

For example, any map you've ever looked at is merely an approximate representation of the actual world. A road map vastly oversimplifies the real world, and with good reason. It won't show you the real color of the road; it won't show you the elevations; it won't show you the exact shape or color of buildings on the side of the road. However, the map is still providing you with true information -- e.g. how roads are connected; how to get from A to B; where one area is in relation to another area.

And obviously, although the map is a simplification and approximation and a representation, it still provides the true information that "Alberta is north of Montana."



:roll:

It is a scientific fact that if you consume a sufficient quantity of cyanide, it will kill you. There is no "new information" or "new data" which will change that fact. It would be a bit silly to proclaim "scientific theories change with time, thus it is not true that a sufficient dose of cyanide will kill a human being."

It's also not 1905. Science has advanced significantly in just the past 125 years, and we are unlikely to see anything as revolutionary as the discovery of relativity or quantum mechanics. We should also note that whenever new information is discovered, it needs to fit in somehow with what is now a huge body of established facts. E.g. relativity superseded Newtonian physics, but it also had to explain why Newton's theories worked so well in certain conditions. It also did not toss out the laws of thermodynamics, in fact modern science doesn't work without incorporating earlier discovers of, for example, conservation laws or the existence of gravity.

We should also note that if "science does not express truths," then pretty much nothing does. Science, after all, is basically empiricism on mathematic steroids. All perceptual and philosophical structures are ultimately nothing more than "mere models" and are limited in the same way. Thus, the phrase "science does not reveal truths" in and of itself purports to reveal a truth. So, if you believe this claim, then obviously you believe that humans have some sort of access to truth -- even though the statement "science does not reveal truths" is really just another model and approximation of the world.

Good luck devising an anti-science formulation that doesn't end up defeating itself.

You're talking out your ass, dude. Your last paragraph is incoherent nonsense, trying to mix physical science and philosophy together the way you do.

Your statement in red is a lot like those who thought the Earth was flat, until they were proven wrong. You have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes. So you should refrain from such arrogant statements.

 

[Mach]

We should also note that if "science does not express truths," then pretty much nothing does. Science, after all, is basically empiricism on mathematic steroids. All perceptual and philosophical structures are ultimately nothing more than "mere models" and are limited in the same way. Thus, the phrase "science does not reveal truths" in and of itself purports to reveal a truth. So, if you believe this claim, then obviously you believe that humans have some sort of access to truth -- even though the statement "science does not reveal truths" is really just another model and approximation of the world.Good luck devising an anti-science formulation that doesn't end up defeating itself.

Yes indeed.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I believe that is part of what Paul was pointing out. Truths are not immutable. However there are extant societies that do honor divine right to rule. Just not in the west. Tho Monaco is still a monarchy, and there are those in Spain who want to re-establish the Monarchy as the ruling authority. The Roma still have a King, an inherited role backed by divine right.

Truths are just popular mythologies, if thats the case. Not very useful. :shrug:

 

[JasperL]

Science doesn’t deal in truth. Science deals in…science.

Paul M. Sutter: Astrophysicist | Agent to the Stars"

Boiling the excerpt down to that conclusion, what are we supposed to learn if we accept that conclusion? How do we view "science" differently with that in mind? Or is it, as you say below, to assert that "Science is just another belief system" and so a science-based view of e.g. evolution, supported by tons of data and all the evidence we can examine, is no more or less valid than the "belief system" outlined in the Old Testament that the earth is actually just 10,000 years old, plus or minus a few years? Astrology (belief system - not "truth") = astronomy (just another belief system - not "truth")?

The latter is obviously absurd, so what's the point of making the observation? If it's just that science is often imperfect, and subject to revision, or better understandings, or new discoveries that might in fact cause us to dismiss some of what we think we know, that's fine, and it's the premise of virtually every single person engaging in scientific research at any given time.

 

[longview]

I'm just saying that's an absolute claim of truth above.

But we do not know what the absolute truth is, all we can do is chip away at what is not truth
until only truth remains.

 

[Slartibartfast]

No, it's not. There is no "right to rule" over other people, end of story. The popularity contest isn't any more valid than the divine right of kings.

Also true

Rights and truths are what we make of them, as a society

 

[OldFatGuy]

Good luck devising an anti-science formulation that doesn't end up defeating itself.

Leave it to you to misinterpret this as anti-science. :lamo

There are no facts.

 

[Mach]

You're talking out your ass, dude. Your last paragraph is incoherent nonsense, trying to mix physical science and philosophy together the way you do.

American, philosophy is where the sciences originated. Philosophical concepts are what we use to establish the foundations of all knowledge, of which science is essentially a body of, and process of gathering.

Aristotle's "natural philosophy" spans a wide range of natural phenomena including those now covered by physics, biology and other natural sciences.[43] In Aristotle's terminology, "natural philosophy" is a branch of philosophy examining the phenomena of the natural world, and includes fields that would be regarded today as physics, biology and other natural sciences.

You should read some of that, it's good to know about the origins of our western civilization...as Americans. You can do e-books or half priced books, it's not a hard read, and it's interesting stuff.

 

[Mach]

But we do not know what the absolute truth is.

The above is another absolute truth...thus,you're in contradiction again.

I'm showing you that your claim is contradictory. If you instead accept what you normally use already in your daily life...that longview is entirely capable of knowing true from false, then it's all consistent, and there are no such error.
Why reject that? It seems like it's how we all spend our lives. When I eat a pickle, I don't claim it might be a ****ing hamburger.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Truths are just popular mythologies, if thats the case. Not very useful. :shrug:

The results of scientific inquiry are as useful as we make them. Truth is irrelevant to that usage.

Underlying every myth there is a touch of a reality. Where there is smoke, there is fire.

Discounting myths entirely may be one of western society's greatest philosophical mistakes.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Boiling the excerpt down to that conclusion, what are we supposed to learn if we accept that conclusion? How do we view "science" differently with that in mind? Or is it, as you say below, to assert that "Science is just another belief system" and so a science-based view of e.g. evolution, supported by tons of data and all the evidence we can examine, is no more or less valid than the "belief system" outlined in the Old Testament that the earth is actually just 10,000 years old, plus or minus a few years? Astrology (belief system - not "truth") = astronomy (just another belief system - not "truth")?

The latter is obviously absurd, so what's the point of making the observation? If it's just that science is often imperfect, and subject to revision, or better understandings, or new discoveries that might in fact cause us to dismiss some of what we think we know, that's fine, and it's the premise of virtually every single person engaging in scientific research at any given time.

Who said anything about dismissal?

Humans are imperfect. Anything and everything made by man or woman is imperfect. Makes life interesting and fun. You do know fun?

 

[Slartibartfast]

The results of scientific inquiry are as useful as we make them. Truth is irrelevant to that usage.

Underlying every myth there is a touch of a reality. Where there is smoke, there is fire.

Discounting myths entirely may be one of western society's greatest philosophical mistakes.

Part of American culture is that sometimes we get distracted by .... ooo shiny!!!

 

[OldFatGuy]

Also true

Rights and truths are what we make of them, as a society

Or as individuals.

 

[OldFatGuy]

American, philosophy is where the sciences originated. Philosophical concepts are what we use to establish the foundations of all knowledge, of which science is essentially a body of, and process of gathering.

Modern science in western thought began long before Europeans came to the Americas.

 

[Visbek]

That's the gist of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

No, it isn't.

Godel wasn't discussing empiricism or science at all. He was specifically discussing logical systems, and saying they could either be consistent, or complete (i.e. including certain paradoxical structures), but not both.

 

[longview]

The above is another absolute truth...thus,you're in contradiction again.

I'm showing you that your claim is contradictory. If you instead accept what you normally use already in your daily life...that longview is entirely capable of knowing true from false, then it's all consistent, and there are no such error.
Why reject that? It seems like it's how we all spend our lives. When I eat a pickle, I don't claim it might be a ****ing hamburger.

I am not sure why you are only posting partial quotes, here is what I said.
"But we do not know what the absolute truth is, all we can do is chip away at what is not truth
until only truth remains."
I am not talking about philosophy, but science.
If I want to know what an unknown substance is, one methodology is to eliminate the easy choices of what it is not.

 

[OldFatGuy]

No, it isn't.

Godel wasn't discussing empiricism or science at all. He was specifically discussing logical systems, and saying they could either be consistent, or complete (i.e. including certain paradoxical structures), but not both.

Time for you to re-read Godel.

 

[AProudLefty]

No, it isn't.

Godel wasn't discussing empiricism or science at all. He was specifically discussing logical systems, and saying they could either be consistent, or complete (i.e. including certain paradoxical structures), but not both.

Science is a system.

 

[JasperL]

Who said anything about dismissal?

Humans are imperfect. Anything and everything made by man or woman is imperfect. Makes life interesting and fun. You do know fun?

Fair enough. The 'imperfect' is why we have scientists who do research and learn new things every day, so I guess I agree!

 

[iguanaman]

Science is an expression of the physical universe, but has zero to do with morality. Your first two statements are moral statements, for which science has no answer.

So "morality" changes just like science then. Nothing can provide the absolute truth. It is a myth. At least science strives for the truth.

 

[Visbek]

You're talking out your ass, dude. Your last paragraph is incoherent nonsense, trying to mix physical science and philosophy together the way you do.

You're out of your element, Donny.

OFG's position, if taken seriously, is self-defeating. It is not my problem if you are unable to understand why.

Your statement in red is a lot like those who thought the Earth was flat, until they were proven wrong.

LOL

The claim that "people believed the Earth is flat!" is mostly a myth. Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of the Earth around 240 BCE. It was invoked as an anti-Catholic slur in the 18th century.

And no, claiming that "relativity is true" is nothing like "The Earth is flat." We have tons of incredibly accurate observations (e.g. gravitational lensing, discrepancies between clocks on satellites and on the surface of the Earth) to support the theory of relativity. Similarly, quantum mechanics is considered the single most successful scientific theory ever developed. It is highly unlikely that any theory will truly overthrow them, in the same way that relativity superseded Newtonian mechanics -- and, I might add, we still use Newton's theories, because it's excellent at describing events at speeds slow enough that relativistic effects can be safely ignored.

And again, I could be here all day citing scientific truths that are basically permanent, and which you would ignore at great risk to your health and safety. To name but a few:

• Gasoline is flammable
• Humans need oxygen to survive
• The nucleotides of DNA are composed of four nucleobases (cytosine [C], guanine [G], adenine [A] or thymine [T])
• Photons have the properties of both waves and particles
• When no external torque acts on an object, no change of angular momentum will occur.
• The mass of an electron is 9.10938356(11)×10−31 kg

Do I really need to go on?

You have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes.

No, I have a pretty good idea. More importantly, scientists have a really good idea as well. There's a lot to learn, but it's either aspects that are incredibly difficult to examine (e.g. particles smaller than what the LHC can probe) or are really hard engineering challenges (like making a fusion reactor) or tough medical problems (how much better can we get at dealing with cancer?) or weird things that won't revolutionize science as a whole (e.g. why is ice slippery?).

We are highly unlikely to see anything as revolutionary as QM or relativity. The only thing that comes close will be figuring out how to reconcile those two theories, and possibly a full scientific explanation of consciousness. And it's entirely plausible that we might never know the answers to those two specific problems.

 

[Visbek]

Leave it to you to misinterpret this as anti-science.

Yeah, that's because... it is anti-science. It doesn't help that in another thread, you were proclaiming "doctors get things wrong!" because the recommendations of pediatricians clashes with your political views.

And of course, there are lots of problems with the text you cut and paste, though you can't bother to actually address the problems. What a surprise.

There are no facts.

"It is a fact that there are no facts" is a self-defeating claim. Thanks for demonstrating my point.

 

[Visbek]

Time for you to re-read Godel.

Dude, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. Explain to us, in your own terms, how Godel's Incompleteness Theorem licenses someone to assign a truth-value to a paradoxical statement. Have fun with that.