Science does not reveal truth

[OldFatGuy]

Paul M. SutterScience
Astrophysicist | Agent to the Stars
We have no clue what’s going on.

"What is truth?

It’s a pretty popular question, apparently going back several thousand years. And over the centuries and millennia many people have tried to seek out the truth. Or reveal it. Or grapple with the truth. Or wrestle with it. Or at the very least come to terms with it.

And while science is a powerful force in understanding the way the world works, it is not truth.

To draw the distinction, there are facts. There are things we observe about the world around us. We observe the shifting of light from distant galaxies. We observe the mutations over generations in DNA. We can see chemicals combine and interact.

But science itself isn’t just a collection of facts about the natural world. That’s only part of the story. The bigger part of the story is what we do with those facts. And what we do is try to interpret them and understand them, and fold them into a larger picture that we can use to make predictions about the behavior of those same systems in the natural world.

And all our models and theories are representations and approximations of reality as we see it. That is not truth.

The biggest giveaway is that scientific theories change with time. As we acquire new information or new data, we have to update all of our beliefs. And how can a belief be true if it is subject to change at a moment’s notice?

Science represents reality, and we try to be as faithful and accurate as possible so we can get an ever deeper and ever more fundal fundamental understandings of of the way the world works.

I’m not the one to tell you what truth is. And neither are scientists – at least when it comes to speaking about science. We know what we know about the universe through observation, and those observations are flawed and subject to bias and interpretation and experimental uncertainty. And yes, some observations can be flat out wrong and will later be corrected or updated in the future.

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

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

 

[iguanaman]

Paul M. SutterScience
Astrophysicist | Agent to the Stars
We have no clue what’s going on.

"What is truth?

It’s a pretty popular question, apparently going back several thousand years. And over the centuries and millennia many people have tried to seek out the truth. Or reveal it. Or grapple with the truth. Or wrestle with it. Or at the very least come to terms with it.

And while science is a powerful force in understanding the way the world works, it is not truth.

To draw the distinction, there are facts. There are things we observe about the world around us. We observe the shifting of light from distant galaxies. We observe the mutations over generations in DNA. We can see chemicals combine and interact.

But science itself isn’t just a collection of facts about the natural world. That’s only part of the story. The bigger part of the story is what we do with those facts. And what we do is try to interpret them and understand them, and fold them into a larger picture that we can use to make predictions about the behavior of those same systems in the natural world.

And all our models and theories are representations and approximations of reality as we see it. That is not truth.

The biggest giveaway is that scientific theories change with time. As we acquire new information or new data, we have to update all of our beliefs. And how can a belief be true if it is subject to change at a moment’s notice?

Science represents reality, and we try to be as faithful and accurate as possible so we can get an ever deeper and ever more fundal fundamental understandings of of the way the world works.

I’m not the one to tell you what truth is. And neither are scientists – at least when it comes to speaking about science. We know what we know about the universe through observation, and those observations are flawed and subject to bias and interpretation and experimental uncertainty. And yes, some observations can be flat out wrong and will later be corrected or updated in the future.

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

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

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.

 

[Mach]

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.

 

[longview]

Paul M. SutterScience
Astrophysicist | Agent to the Stars
We have no clue what’s going on.

"What is truth?

It’s a pretty popular question, apparently going back several thousand years. And over the centuries and millennia many people have tried to seek out the truth. Or reveal it. Or grapple with the truth. Or wrestle with it. Or at the very least come to terms with it.

And while science is a powerful force in understanding the way the world works, it is not truth.

To draw the distinction, there are facts. There are things we observe about the world around us. We observe the shifting of light from distant galaxies. We observe the mutations over generations in DNA. We can see chemicals combine and interact.

But science itself isn’t just a collection of facts about the natural world. That’s only part of the story. The bigger part of the story is what we do with those facts. And what we do is try to interpret them and understand them, and fold them into a larger picture that we can use to make predictions about the behavior of those same systems in the natural world.

And all our models and theories are representations and approximations of reality as we see it. That is not truth.

The biggest giveaway is that scientific theories change with time. As we acquire new information or new data, we have to update all of our beliefs. And how can a belief be true if it is subject to change at a moment’s notice?

Science represents reality, and we try to be as faithful and accurate as possible so we can get an ever deeper and ever more fundal fundamental understandings of of the way the world works.

I’m not the one to tell you what truth is. And neither are scientists – at least when it comes to speaking about science. We know what we know about the universe through observation, and those observations are flawed and subject to bias and interpretation and experimental uncertainty. And yes, some observations can be flat out wrong and will later be corrected or updated in the future.

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

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

One could say that Newton's perspective was a first approximation.
Maxwell's a second approximation,
and Perhaps Einstein, a third approximation.
While none reflect the absolute truth of our physical world, each within the limitations of technology, and understanding,
was able to move the fitted curve closer to reality.

 

[OldFatGuy]

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.

It was a mortal sin for Catholics, because a Pope was responding to an economic issue.

Science is just another belief system.

 

[swing_voter]

Just because everything in the world of science is open to debate doesn't mean that nothing in science is true.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Paul M. SutterScience
Astrophysicist | Agent to the Stars
We have no clue what’s going on.

"What is truth?

It’s a pretty popular question, apparently going back several thousand years. And over the centuries and millennia many people have tried to seek out the truth. Or reveal it. Or grapple with the truth. Or wrestle with it. Or at the very least come to terms with it.

And while science is a powerful force in understanding the way the world works, it is not truth.

To draw the distinction, there are facts. There are things we observe about the world around us. We observe the shifting of light from distant galaxies. We observe the mutations over generations in DNA. We can see chemicals combine and interact.

But science itself isn’t just a collection of facts about the natural world. That’s only part of the story. The bigger part of the story is what we do with those facts. And what we do is try to interpret them and understand them, and fold them into a larger picture that we can use to make predictions about the behavior of those same systems in the natural world.

And all our models and theories are representations and approximations of reality as we see it. That is not truth.

The biggest giveaway is that scientific theories change with time. As we acquire new information or new data, we have to update all of our beliefs. And how can a belief be true if it is subject to change at a moment’s notice?

Science represents reality, and we try to be as faithful and accurate as possible so we can get an ever deeper and ever more fundal fundamental understandings of of the way the world works.

I’m not the one to tell you what truth is. And neither are scientists – at least when it comes to speaking about science. We know what we know about the universe through observation, and those observations are flawed and subject to bias and interpretation and experimental uncertainty. And yes, some observations can be flat out wrong and will later be corrected or updated in the future.

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

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

Truths tend to also change over time. Nobody assumes the king has a divine right to rule these days.

 

[OldFatGuy]

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

....


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.

Looks like Paul struck a nerve. Nothing about determining truth from falsehood is self evident.

 

[Mach]

While none reflect the absolute truth of our physical world,

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.

 

[Slartibartfast]

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.

How do you know you're not a boltzmann brain and that I am real?

 

[Mach]

Looks like Paul struck a nerve. Nothing about determining truth from falsehood is self evident.

I refuted his claim, on a debate forum. Why would you think that "Struck a nerve"? I simply challenged your debate claim, and you can't defend yours. That's the process, OldFatGuy.

That you cannot refute my claim, is sufficient. I'm sorry you though he was right, he's not. < - Notice I claim to be able to know if he's right or wrong.
In contrast to that, if you really believe Paul, you have to admit, just like Paul, that you cannot know what I claim is really true or not. Defeated by your own argument.

 

[aociswundumho]

Truths tend to also change over time. Nobody assumes the king has a divine right to rule these days.

True, but many believe that some people have the legitimate right to rule over other people simply because they won a popularity contest.

 

[OldFatGuy]

One could say that Newton's perspective was a first approximation.
Maxwell's a second approximation,
and Perhaps Einstein, a third approximation.
While none reflect the absolute truth of our physical world, each within the limitations of technology, and understanding,
was able to move the fitted curve closer to reality.

Aristophenes believed we were all living as part of someone else's dreams. Reality can be very subjective. (BTW Aristophenes was not some ancient Greek, but a professor of Philosophy, a contemporary of Freud and Jung who disputed them both in Vienna. As nutz as the two of them, and just as busy chasing skirts. )

 

[Slartibartfast]

True, but many believe that some people have the legitimate right to rule over other people simply because they won a popularity contest.

This is true.

 

[longview]

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.

I am just saying that each approximation gets closer to reality.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Just because everything in the world of science is open to debate doesn't mean that nothing in science is true.

You are misreading Paul's thesis. He is not saying that there is no truth in Science, but that science preaches science, and truth is secondary.

 

[aociswundumho]

This is true.

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.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Truths tend to also change over time. Nobody assumes the king has a divine right to rule these days.

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.

 

[Mach]

How do you know you're not a boltzmann brain and that I am real?

At its root, that's absolute skepticism.

Same way I, and most everyone else knows about reality, through observing it. I haven't observed this "boltzmann brain", have you?
If not, then you're appealing to concepts not evidenced in reality. That is, you are appealing to "not reality". I'm talking about reality.

Try it tacomancer.

Mach claims: I can know true from false. I can also be in error.
Tacomancer: " "
Paul: I cannot know truth. And thus my claim "I cannot know truth", isn't known to be true. Oops, I'll just be silent on that and do science stuff.

It is true that tacos have higher priority than philosophy though

 

[OldFatGuy]

I refuted his claim, on a debate forum. Why would you think that "Struck a nerve"? I simply challenged your debate claim, and you can't defend yours. That's the process, OldFatGuy.

That you cannot refute my claim, is sufficient. I'm sorry you though he was right, he's not. < - Notice I claim to be able to know if he's right or wrong.
In contrast to that, if you really believe Paul, you have to admit, just like Paul, that you cannot know what I claim is really true or not. Defeated by your own argument.

There are no absolutes, except for "there are no absolutes." Some call that circular reasoning. I hope you impressed yourself.

Yes, I know, taxes and death. A sin of my omission.

 

[OldFatGuy]

What is is, or is it not? Will we ever learn what happened to poor old Charlie on the Boston MTA?

 

[Visbek]

And while science is a powerful force in understanding the way the world works, it is not truth.

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

And all our models and theories are representations and approximations of reality as we see it. That is not truth.

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."

The biggest giveaway is that scientific theories change with time. As we acquire new information or new data, we have to update all of our beliefs. And how can a belief be true if it is subject to change at a moment’s notice?

: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.

 

[Glitch]

Paul M. SutterScience
Astrophysicist | Agent to the Stars
We have no clue what’s going on.

"What is truth?

It’s a pretty popular question, apparently going back several thousand years. And over the centuries and millennia many people have tried to seek out the truth. Or reveal it. Or grapple with the truth. Or wrestle with it. Or at the very least come to terms with it.

And while science is a powerful force in understanding the way the world works, it is not truth.

To draw the distinction, there are facts. There are things we observe about the world around us. We observe the shifting of light from distant galaxies. We observe the mutations over generations in DNA. We can see chemicals combine and interact.

But science itself isn’t just a collection of facts about the natural world. That’s only part of the story. The bigger part of the story is what we do with those facts. And what we do is try to interpret them and understand them, and fold them into a larger picture that we can use to make predictions about the behavior of those same systems in the natural world.

And all our models and theories are representations and approximations of reality as we see it. That is not truth.

The biggest giveaway is that scientific theories change with time. As we acquire new information or new data, we have to update all of our beliefs. And how can a belief be true if it is subject to change at a moment’s notice?

Science represents reality, and we try to be as faithful and accurate as possible so we can get an ever deeper and ever more fundal fundamental understandings of of the way the world works.

I’m not the one to tell you what truth is. And neither are scientists – at least when it comes to speaking about science. We know what we know about the universe through observation, and those observations are flawed and subject to bias and interpretation and experimental uncertainty. And yes, some observations can be flat out wrong and will later be corrected or updated in the future.

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

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

Science has never been the "truth." That is ridiculous since science tends to get things wrong more often than they get them right, particularly in the beginning when very little is known of a topic. Science is the search for truth. A search for a better understanding of the universe.

Science represents different realities, depending on who is doing the science. If everyone conformed to the accepted notion of "reality" we would never have anyone like Newton or Einstein popping up throughout history. Sometimes science is best served by thinking outside the box, not in the same manner that everyone else considers to be "normal."

 

[Mach]

I am just saying that each approximation gets closer to reality.

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

 

[American]

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.

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.