David Henry

I'm doing this thread in anticipation of a troll invasion, this invasion will occur as I challenge this morally bankrupt paradigm and it's moral and corporeal destruction as inherent in it's blueprint of inadequate thinking.

So is there an absolute truth?
Not sure, but we do have scientific and objective truths, and these are obtained via rational analysis and lead to objectively valid laws and principles which can have a non-rational origin, but ultimately, all concepts must be logical to have rational validity.

Btw, the notion of absolute is specifically a product of religious thinking and relates to authoritarian ideals of a perfect power{GOD}, and of course, this became the justification for authoritarian and prohibitive ethical systems.

So in essence, a scientific or rational statement is obtained by examining, analysing enough proper facts, without any of them being suppressed to cater for prejudice{irrational views} or dogma{status of absolute knowledge}.

We are concerned with increasingly reaching higher levels of optimal truth, not absolute truth...this truth is both relative to the scientific paradigm and the knowledge state of the paradigm{which can only be guessed}...we can never know beforehand when the paradigm will be superseded.

I'll speak more about this later, but when dealing with variable subjects{life}, we can actually attempt to reach the optimal level of knowledge regardless of the paradigm if the truth is available empirically and isn't dependent on further developed theory for empirical advancement , .......and when experiment is the measure of truth, although aided and prompted by theory.

So 1000's of scientists can claim what ever they want, but they must not be the victims of weak explanatory and predictive knowledge, and they must recognize the role of experiment as arbiter of objective truth, although may just be rational without being statistically or empirically replicable when dealing with variable subjects{life}, IOW, if it works best for the "individual", then this is the truth as adjudicated by experiment and as necessary due to the variable nature of the subject....IOW, we don't need what works for one variable subject to work for another, but we do need the empirical knowledge to continually work for the specific individual.

homunculus

I think you have erected a straw man, here. No modern philosophers of science uphold the view you are criticizing, which is the empiricism of Bacon (among others). To Bacon, inferences from the evidence had the status of CERTAIN knowledge. But for nearly a century, scientific thinkers such as Popper, Quine, Feyerebend, Lakatos and Kuhn have argued for what might be most generally and loosely categorized as "hypotheticism". They all admit that science - both in its theory and in its methodology - is coloured by prejudice and ideology, and that "truth" is at best a kind of regulative ideal. They have conflicting views about how scientific enquiry does proceed, and in what respects science can be said to make progress etc. - but even so, the belief that science leads to certainty is long dead.

Paul.

David Henry

Homu...you really haven't said anything+ I placed this thread here as it was philosophical in content and it is for the benefit of the ignorant who I anticipate challenging me in the future with all manner of dysfunctional statements.

And I was highlighting what optimal knowledge is and how an "individual" can obtain it by experiment regardless of whether they personally know or understand the theory that supports the techniques and principles, and this optimal knowledge isn't inhibited by appeals to a lack of enough scientific certainty* as the expeirments are the arbiter of the optimal truth.

* IOW, saying that this isn't it because all knowledge is paradigm specific doesn't prevent us from reaching optimal knowledge and determined empirically within this paradigm.

Bob Stewart

David Henry,

I am puzzled whenever a person asks a question with this phrase. Can you rephrase it so as to precluse an answer such as "Of course! There are loads of them.

There is an absolute truth about the Capital of France-
1. Paris is the current Capital of France.

There is an absolute truth about what I had to drink just now-
2. I just had a cup of coffee.

There is an absolute truth about Bill Clinton, the former President of the United States-

3. Bill Clinton is no longer President in the U.S.

There is an absolute truth about dogs-
4. There have been black dogs.

and so on, and so on,...

Is there some 'area' that you are implicitly focussing on that makes answers such as those above besdie the point?

Bob Stewart

homunculus

"And I was highlighting what optimal knowledge is and how an "individual" can obtain it by experiment regardless of whether they personally know or understand the theory that supports the techniques and principles, and this optimal knowledge isn't inhibited by appeals to a lack of enough scientific certainty* as the expeirments are the arbiter of the optimal truth"

I think sometimes people delude themselves into thinking they possess some special insight or understanding, when in fact what they mistake for "understanding" is really just a bunch of vague metaphysical intuitions, which tell us nothing. Scientific theories, by contrast, have a clear logical structure allowing us to make definite inferences about the world - testable predictions about we should, or should not expect to happen. They have CONSEQUENCES.

Paul.

abe smith

Nicely-done, homunculus and Ms. Siv !!

David Henry

Bob...I notice you consider you beliefs as "under construction"..Well, I happen to agree with you.

David Henry

Correct, and those theories that most effectively explain and enable superior prediction are always the desirable scientific theories.

abe smith

I posted, asking david Henry to explain that previous staement, but it's lost I guess. So, David? please elucidate? Thanks.

Clutch

David, you seem to think that your OP will be considered revolutionary or heretical or somesuch, by some group of somebody or other that's worth engaging. Is it the "1000's of scientists"?

Personally I found it of marginal intelligibility, though that may be my shortcoming and not yours. Still, here's how you could help me out in either event: Explicitly state the precise view to which you are opposed, and indicate who, exactly, holds this view, by producing quotes that make their views transparent. Then explain why you think that view is mistaken (an actual argument would be helpful here).

It is pointless for you to issue dire predictions of the imminent havoc to be wreaked by your devastating post, so long as it's utterly unclear what you're saying, to whom, and why. Thanks in advance for any clarification you might be able to offer.