Science does not reveal truth

[Jonsa]

sigh

I hate to break this to you, but: While both the Liar Paradox and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem rely on paradoxes generated by recursion, it does not follow that "every paradox generated by recursion is addressed by Godel's Theorem." Nor, as I posited, does Godel's Theorem indicate a method to assign a stable truth-value to those types of recursive paradoxes.

To wit: Godel's first theorem is that for any formal axiomatic system capable of generating arithmetic, there will always be a (recursive) theorem that cannot be proven within that formal axiomatic system. If your system excludes those types of statements (e.g. Principia Mathematica's meta-logical structure), then it is incomplete. If your system allows those types of statements, it will be inconsistent (as those G sentences cannot be consistent), which renders the formal system useless (via the principle of explosion).

Godel wasn't trying to legitimize recursive paradoxes. He was using them to show one of the limits of specific types of formal logical systems, such as the one Whitehead and Russel developed in an attempt to defend their logicism.

At best, the Liar Paradox is just an example of the type of recursive structure that Godel leveraged. He certainly wasn't saying "we can now say that the Liar Paradox is true."

Thus, a claim like "it is absolutely true that there are no absolute truths" is still self-defeating.

The only possible option is to declare it as a dialetheia, which generates its own raft of problems, including the fact that defending "it is absolutely true that there are no absolute truths" relies on far more than just one purported absolute truth, including "dialetheias exist" and "humans can properly identify dialetheias" and " 'it is absolutely true that there are no absolute truths' is in fact a dialetheia" and so on.

That's what I get for my wit being a tad too obtuse.

 

[Olddemocrat]

It used to be a "mortal sin" to eat meat on Friday. Beliefs also change with the times. Science IS truth as we know it and that is why it must change with new discoveries. Otherwise it would be lies.

aanope. Science is a collection of demonstrable physical, chemical, and or electric facts. Truth is an abstract concept. science isn't abstract. science is very stract.. at least within the confines of this thread.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Oh please.

Black hole research is not offering a differing view of "energy mass relationships". Black hole research has consistently matched the predictions of the theory.


And Cern was a mistake and the original claim does not stand.

I wonder if its a function of not knowing what one doesn't know or knowing what clearly isn't.

You are not up to snuff.

 

[American]

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.



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?



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.

Flat Earth myth? Yeah, and I've heard people on the Left refer to rightwingers as flat earthers plenty of times. So clearly your cohort believes in the flat earth myth. Secondly you can't predict what we'll find in the future, and only a closed-minded bull****ter would pretend to.

 

[longview]

How do you know that there is an absolute truth?

You don't, the best we can do is to eliminate those concepts that can be proven not true.
A good example might be the concept of spontaneous generation.

 

[Mach]

You said "American, philosophy is where the sciences originated."

Hint, American is the handle of the poster I was replying to.

 

[Mach]

Secondly you can't predict what we'll find in the future, and only a closed-minded bull****ter would pretend to.

And yet you are claiming above, that you can predict in the future, that Visbek cannot predict any future truth.
You're doing just what you claim is close-minded bull****.
Contradictory.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Hint, American is the handle of the poster I was replying to.

Missed the comma. Should have put on my reading glasses.

 

[Mach]

Missed the comma. Should have put on my reading glasses.

I have no good system for reading glasses either. If I'm upstairs, they are downstairs, and vice-versa. Something about a chain wearing them on my neck...I prefer to be half-blind

 

[OldFatGuy]

I have no good system for reading glasses either. If I'm upstairs, they are downstairs, and vice-versa. Something about a chain wearing them on my neck...I prefer to be half-blind

Mine were sitting on top of my head. I buy the cheap ones, $10 for 10, at the dollar store nearby. They are everywhere here, and I still forget to use them.

 

[OldFatGuy]

And yet you are claiming above, that you can predict in the future, that Visbek cannot predict any future truth.
You're doing just what you claim is close-minded bull****.
Contradictory.

I can make predictions, usually wrong but predictions. I tell young women they settled for the men they are with, and the man they want doesn't see them romantically. They all respond with awe.