seebs

Hmm. How many times do I have to say that these things are distinct before you stop thinking I'm equating them?

I don't think we can "just know reality". But I do think that science depends on the assertion that reality, being real, can have statements made about it which are "true" or "false".

You're skipping levels again. Even if we assume that our senses are accurate in depecting a "real" world, and that our observations are true, science is very useful.

However, if we assume that we *cannot* make true observations, science is useless.

Nothing at all; my observation was that the thermometer read 72, not necessarily that this reading was accurate.

However, we *must* have the assertion that, if we think the thermometer reads 72, that we're making a meaningful statement there.

(snip stuff about theory of science I learned >20 years ago)

Starboy

seebs, you seem to want to separate the observer from the observed. Observer and phenomena are all in the same reality. Any model of reality makes assumptions about the entire chain of deduction. Experimental results that agree with the chain say nothing about the fidelity of the links in the chain to reality. All it implies is that the deductive chain may have predictive power.


What makes a statement like "the thermometer reads 72" meaningful is not that it is reading 72. What makes it meaningful is that there may be a deductive chain that predicts that is should read 72. This is just restating what has already been said. It is just another way of saying that science assumes that there is a repeatable objective reality. I would hope that you would agree that an assumption does not have to be declared “true” to be tested.

I know you say you are not doing this, but your responses just scream out to me that you think: truth == reality.

If you take your sentence:

“However, if we assume that we *cannot* make true observations, science is useless.”

And replace the word “true” with “reality”:

“However, if we assume that we *cannot* make reality observations, science is useless.”

Gosh it is just another way of saying that without assuming reality exists there is no point in doing science. No argument there, but what is the need to make any claims of “truth”? Unless of course you equate truth with reality.

Starboy

seebs

The results don't say anything about the fidelity of the links - but that we care about the results means
that we *believe* the links to be good enough to tell us something about reality.

Why not? It is useful to be able to describe the state of the universe, independent of any predictions or theories. If we can't, we can't go anywhere.

It's not just "objective"; it's "objective, and about which we can make statements, and we can verify whether or not a statement is true". Objective implies truth.

No. Truth is statements about reality which are not contradicted by reality. They're different layers; truth is the description, reality is the thing described.

The need to make claims of truth is this: If we can't, we can't *say* anything about that reality, not even "there is stuff". Before our debates about the qualities of water are of any importance, we must be able to make statements like "this substance is water" or "this substance is a liquid", and we must believe that these statements do, or do not, describe reality *correctly*.

You're trying to define truth out of existance, but it won't work; the world contains true and false statements. While the thermometer reads 72, it does not read 85; if it is true to say that it reads 72, it is false to say that it reads 85. Without the ability to make assertions such as "we read the thermometer", we can't go anywhere. That's not just reality; it's the ability to make truth claims *about* reality.

You seem to be stuck because you think that, if we grant any kind of truth at all, we're somehow stuck taking any scientific result and never questioning it again, but no such thing is the case. Truth is a useful concept even with skepticism; indeed, it's *more* useful when combined with skepticism.

Starboy

No not at all. I have lived long enough to have learned that pretending to know something you don't know doesn't make you know it. Proclaiming that certain statements are "true" or must be "true" while engaged in an activity that solely exists because we don't know is silly. "Truth" only has a place in activities in which the universe of discourse is known such as those created by man. Within these universes, statements of "truth" can be defined or declared and then further demonstrated. Examples of such areas are mathematics, philosophy and theology. Science is something very different, and "truth" doesn't apply. The reason is obvious, the universe of discourse is not known. There is no way to evaluate statements of "truth" since we don't know reality. There isn't even a way to know when we have learned enough of reality to make statements of "truth". But cheer up seebs, even though you can't show that the explanations and methods of science are "true" you can still use them. You can use them because the scientific method does demonstrate that at least they work in the areas explored by the experiments.

Starboy

seebs

Once again, you've switched levels. You're talking about whether or not *conclusions* are true; I'm talking about whether or not *observations* are true.

If we can't meaningfully say that we made a certain observation, then the whole exercise is pointless. If it is meaningful to say "we made this observation", then we are asserting that statements about reality which are true are distinct from statements about reality which are false.

This is before anyone brings in a hypothesis, a test, or anything; this is just talking about basic observations.

Starboy

seebs, I have not switched levels. I simply maintain that the part you wish to evaluate for truth is part of the same reality that is being explored by science. They can't be separated.

Starboy

seebs

We certainly *do* separate "observations" and "conclusions", when describing an experiment.

We are confident of our observations; we are not as confident of our conclusions. We cannot describe the conclusions as following from the observations, and expect this to be of any interest, unless we assume that the observations themselves are true.

Starboy

seebs, where you been, livin large in the first century? Ever heard of Bell's theorm, quantum entanglement, the uncertainty principle? The observation and observer cannot be separated, they are all part of the same reality.

Starboy

openeyes

Starboy, I admire your perseverance in arguing your position with the theists on the board. For what it's worth, your arguments make sense to me.

Starboy

Thanks openeyes, it is my hope that seebs will realize that "rational supernaturalist" is an oxymoron.

Starboy