Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doubting Didymus · 09-08-2002, 07:45 PM

Quote:

This robs science of its most exciting aspect; the incredible journey that is in progress to understand our surroundings.

Wouldn't that be the journey to find out what is true about our surroundings and what is not?

"provisional truth" is a formal term that I do not much like, either. I prefer: as true as our current knowledge allows.

What does it mean if 'it works'? If science finds that a certain kind of plant cures illness, that direct correlation 'works', but it is also TRUE that is is so.

Starboy · 09-08-2002, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
<strong>What does it mean if 'it works'? If science finds that a certain kind of plant cures illness, that direct correlation 'works', but it is also TRUE that is is so.</strong>

DD, you raise a very interesting question. I do not think that science will ever be about the truth of any kind. I say this because of the very nature of science. Science is a dance of fact and theory. Theory informs the interpretation of experiment and experiment verifies theory. As new theory is created new experiments are proposed and those experiments suggest new theory. A theory is a model of nature, but a model is not nature. This is where science and truth part company. A model is like a picture, but a picture of a thing is not the thing. It will never be the thing. A picture of a pipe is not a pipe, try putting something in it and smoke it! So is a theory of gravity the truth of gravity, I don't think so, but it can be a model that works very well thank you.

Starboy

Albion · 09-08-2002, 08:13 PM

I think one of the problems with the use of "truth" is much the same problem we see with the use of "theory"; it means different things in different contexts. When a scientist refers to something being true, he usually means "correct" (or some minor variation on that theme). To a creationist, truth is TRUTH - some absolute external God-given constant. If you try and tell a creationist that science isn't about TRUTH, he has all sorts of scope for assuming that you're saying that any old lie will do as long as it supports the naturalistic dogma.

Doubting Didymus · 09-08-2002, 08:14 PM

I am still confused as to the nature of the divide you see between a scientific finding and a truth.

If our model of gravity says thing fall to a certain acceleration formula, and you drop a ball, and it falls to that same formula, then wouldn't you say that it is true that said formula applies? I dont see how the formula for gravity can be said to 'work' but somehow not be true.

Obviously theories are adaptive and constanly changing, but the whole point of adapting a theory is to make it closer to the truth, no? Perhaps what you are trying to say is that science may or may not be true, but it 'works' to give true results?

Starboy · 09-08-2002, 08:15 PM

Albion, I am afraid you are right. But IMO this only means that science education should spend more time on process and less time on fact.

Starboy

Starboy · 09-08-2002, 08:27 PM

DD, when a theorist comes up with a theory of gravity, what they are really creating is a model of gravity. They write down equations that describes it as a mathematical field that can be used to predict the motion of bodies in that field. Does that mean that gravity is an equation? I look at the equations of motion and ask myself is that space and time? I don�t think so. They are only models. Gravity is a good example, because there are good indications that the current models are wrong. There is continuing negative result from the gravitational wave experiments, there is the intractability of GR to be quantized and then there is MOND. I suspect that any theory that manages to address all these problems is not going to look very much like the equations we have all come to know and love. So I ask you, where is the truth in all of this? I say nowhere, they are all just models. A model of a thing is not the thing.

Starboy

Doubting Didymus · 09-08-2002, 08:40 PM

Sure, the theory of gravity is not gravity, but that seems irrelevant to me.

The theory: "this object is a table" is what I consider true (if it is a table) but the theory is not a table. Does this mean that tables are sentences? of course not, but the theory is still true in the only sense of the word that makes any sense.

Further data might reveal that it is a chair. Obviously this means that the theory was not true, but were we justified in calling it true? I say yes, because it was as true as our knowledge could ascetain.

I say that it is 'true' that the moon is made of rock and not cheese, but there is always a possibility that I am wrong, and moon cheeses will soon be brought back to us on exploration vehicles. Should I therefore change my terminology from 'true' to 'correct', or simply 'it works'? No, I say that it is true that the moon is rock, as true as our knowledge permits. I say the same of scientific theories. The possibility that I am wrong does not stop me from calling things true.

Starboy · 09-08-2002, 08:47 PM

DD, if science were only a collection of facts, and those that collected facts were very carefull to only get the ones that were true, then I would agree with you. But if that were all that there was to science, it wouldn't be very interesting now would it. What makes science so interesting is that it has predictive power. It not only can explain all the facts that have been carefully collected, but it can predict facts that have not been collected. This power of prediction is the theory part of science, and that is the part the models nature. That is the part I am talking about. And that is the part that has the reality challenged in such a lather. Simply collecting facts that are done carefully with verification is police work not science. It is only when the prediction part comes in does it become science. You can call theories true if you want to, but that doesn't make them true. The only way you could claim they were true is if you were able to perform tests on all space for all time and for all possible combination of everyting that exists, not what is know to exist, but everything that exists. No mortal creature can do that, so it is impossible for anyone to claim that it is true. The best they can do is call it provisionally true, but I say so what. Provisionally true until it is shown to be false next thursday. Who cares?

Starboy

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Doubting Didymus · 09-08-2002, 09:00 PM

Quote:

The only way you could claim they were true is if you were able to perform tests on all space for all time and for all possible combination of everyting that exists, not what is know to exist, but everything that exists.

Ah.

Using this standard of truth, nothing is true. Is that what you are trying to say, that there is no such thing as truth?

Do you consider the heliocentric theory of the solar system; true, provisionally true, or just workable?

Starboy · 09-08-2002, 09:02 PM

Just workable. The sun is not at the center of the solar system. The center of gravity of the sun and all the planets is the center. That of course leaves out the galaxy, but that is another story.

Starboy

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-08-2002, 08:13 PM	#43
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	I think one of the problems with the use of "truth" is much the same problem we see with the use of "theory"; it means different things in different contexts. When a scientist refers to something being true, he usually means "correct" (or some minor variation on that theme). To a creationist, truth is TRUTH - some absolute external God-given constant. If you try and tell a creationist that science isn't about TRUTH, he has all sorts of scope for assuming that you're saying that any old lie will do as long as it supports the naturalistic dogma.

09-08-2002, 08:14 PM	#44
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	I am still confused as to the nature of the divide you see between a scientific finding and a truth. If our model of gravity says thing fall to a certain acceleration formula, and you drop a ball, and it falls to that same formula, then wouldn't you say that it is true that said formula applies? I dont see how the formula for gravity can be said to 'work' but somehow not be true. Obviously theories are adaptive and constanly changing, but the whole point of adapting a theory is to make it closer to the truth, no? Perhaps what you are trying to say is that science may or may not be true, but it 'works' to give true results?

09-08-2002, 08:15 PM	#45
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Albion, I am afraid you are right. But IMO this only means that science education should spend more time on process and less time on fact. Starboy

09-08-2002, 08:27 PM	#46
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	DD, when a theorist comes up with a theory of gravity, what they are really creating is a model of gravity. They write down equations that describes it as a mathematical field that can be used to predict the motion of bodies in that field. Does that mean that gravity is an equation? I look at the equations of motion and ask myself is that space and time? I don�t think so. They are only models. Gravity is a good example, because there are good indications that the current models are wrong. There is continuing negative result from the gravitational wave experiments, there is the intractability of GR to be quantized and then there is MOND. I suspect that any theory that manages to address all these problems is not going to look very much like the equations we have all come to know and love. So I ask you, where is the truth in all of this? I say nowhere, they are all just models. A model of a thing is not the thing. Starboy

09-08-2002, 08:40 PM	#47
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Sure, the theory of gravity is not gravity, but that seems irrelevant to me. The theory: "this object is a table" is what I consider true (if it is a table) but the theory is not a table. Does this mean that tables are sentences? of course not, but the theory is still true in the only sense of the word that makes any sense. Further data might reveal that it is a chair. Obviously this means that the theory was not true, but were we justified in calling it true? I say yes, because it was as true as our knowledge could ascetain. I say that it is 'true' that the moon is made of rock and not cheese, but there is always a possibility that I am wrong, and moon cheeses will soon be brought back to us on exploration vehicles. Should I therefore change my terminology from 'true' to 'correct', or simply 'it works'? No, I say that it is true that the moon is rock, as true as our knowledge permits. I say the same of scientific theories. The possibility that I am wrong does not stop me from calling things true.

09-08-2002, 08:47 PM	#48
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	DD, if science were only a collection of facts, and those that collected facts were very carefull to only get the ones that were true, then I would agree with you. But if that were all that there was to science, it wouldn't be very interesting now would it. What makes science so interesting is that it has predictive power. It not only can explain all the facts that have been carefully collected, but it can predict facts that have not been collected. This power of prediction is the theory part of science, and that is the part the models nature. That is the part I am talking about. And that is the part that has the reality challenged in such a lather. Simply collecting facts that are done carefully with verification is police work not science. It is only when the prediction part comes in does it become science. You can call theories true if you want to, but that doesn't make them true. The only way you could claim they were true is if you were able to perform tests on all space for all time and for all possible combination of everyting that exists, not what is know to exist, but everything that exists. No mortal creature can do that, so it is impossible for anyone to claim that it is true. The best they can do is call it provisionally true, but I say so what. Provisionally true until it is shown to be false next thursday. Who cares? Starboy [ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

09-08-2002, 09:02 PM	#50
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Just workable. The sun is not at the center of the solar system. The center of gravity of the sun and all the planets is the center. That of course leaves out the galaxy, but that is another story. Starboy

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.