Reg Prescott

I said (post 275) : Does science yield only truth? Of course not. Does science yield no truths? Almost certainly not. To which Swansont replied: And Strange replied: As long as these two gentlemen continue to distort the facts of the thread, I will continue to remind our membership of these facts. Here, once again, are the claims I've been refuting: (i) "Remember, science is not about "truth" but about models that work;" (Strange, post # 5) (ii) "Science has (almost) nothing to do with "truth", whatever that is. For that you want religion." (Strange, post # 10)

Hi Scott, Glad to hear your thoughts. To be honest, I sometimes have difficulty understanding your posts -- this may be due to my own limitations, of course -- but I enjoy reading your ideas nonetheless. I would like to add (and I don't believe this is a trivial matter) that I find the savagery of some of the comments I've seen hurled in your direction at once shocking and deplorable, all the more since I've never seen you be abusive to anyone in my limited experience here. Readers may refer to post # 264 in this very thread for an example -- and that's from a moderator! (a moderator whose primary task as far as I can see from my short time here is to belittle and humiliate other members) This, of course, is a very old story: You don't think like us therefore there's something wrong with you therefore we're going to hurt you. Be well, Scott. My thoughts are with you. Colin

I suppose we're all somewhat inured by now to the bumptious and tiresome assertions often made by the religious with respect to their pet deities, usually taking the form: "God is [this] and God is [that]" ... seldom qualified by a humble 'in my opinion', and laden with the implication that the announcer is the sole authority on this matter... 'so never mind what anyone else has to say'. Yawn! Twas ever thus, eh? What I find far more disheartening, though, is the penchant of science aficionados, and even scientists themselves, to perpetrate the same hubris with the same degree of alacrity. We've seen it in abundance in our own homely little thread right here, I regret to say. "Science is [this] and science is [that]" ... I hope other members will enjoy this historical talk by Stathis Psillos on what some of science's pin-ups have had to say about what science is, what its aims ought to be, and most germane to ourselves, the appropriate epistemic attitude to adopt vis-à-vis scientific knowledge: realist or instrumentalist. Psillos' peroration in the final two minutes may be salutary to those of a more, er... ebullient disposition. Does science yield only truth? Of course not. Does science yield no truths? Almost certainly not. But I think we knew that already, didn't we, boys and girls?

Erm, I'm pretty sure I haven't used the word "fringe" throughout the thread. You must have me confused with someone else. Which wouldn't appear to help your critique.

I haven't been following this thread closely, but the following caught my eye... Yes, Scott, precisely the same thing has been happening to me in my own thread. I only joined the site two or three weeks ago, eager to learn and share with others, and I don't recall being abusive to anyone. This hasn't stopped other members -- the old hands, I assume -- from engaging in an assassination-of-reputation campaign, hammering away ecstatically at their "-1" keys. I believe my "reputation" now hovers around the -20 mark, challenging Stalin and Mao for baddest ass on the planet. Well, two things to say about that: (i) One has to wonder about the emotional maturity of certain people here. Grow up, for goodness sake! and (ii) As I said, I'm new here; I'm not sure what the function of these "reputation" points is. If a certain number is reached, may we expect a public lynching?

Well spotted, Moth! I'm not sure I understand your remarks about Popper above completely, but you're not the first person to draw the analogy between models of scientific and evolutionary dynamics. Under the Popperian model, we're invited to believe that scientists are constantly proposing, testing, and discarding theories. It's a "random generation plus non-random filtering" model bearing a striking resemblance to the traditional gradualist account of evolution. Theories/hypotheses, on Popper's account, are generated in a non-methodical manner (cf. random mutation), and subsequently retained or abandoned through a methodical testing process (cf. natural selection). On the other hand, Thomas Kuhn's model of science is eerily redolent of Gould's punctuated equilibrium: long periods of stability (paradigms of normal science), wherein scientists are most definitely NOT testing or challenging the paradigm, are punctuated by short bursts of activity -- crisis and revolution. . . Here's another short video. I've no idea who this lady is, but her understanding of the issues we've been discussing in this thread is spot on. Enjoy! (subtitles alert: around 2:08, she says "the terms refer", not "the terms were fair" ) Edit : P.S. Ah, she introduces herself in Part 1: Michela Massimi, Senior Lecturer in the Phil of Science, Edinburgh Uni

@ Swansont Back to picayune bickering, eh? Just when I sensed a detente in the air, Never mind. I'll go back to ignoring you then. Sigh!

Yes, some of what he says is slightly at odds with the reading I've done, but I suppose that's to be expected in philosophy. His encapsulation of the truth/knowledge issues in the opening minutes of Part 3, though, is crystal clear. Just what this thread needs. Bravo, Dr Arnold!

I dunno if it's mentioned in the video or not, but that just is the realist position. re : "According to the description in the video, I am a realist. But not according to you." Well, comments you've made throughout the thread led me to believe you're an instrumentalist with regard to QM, but probably a realist with regard to just about everything else in science. Have I misread you? From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on "Scientific Realism" (opening paragraph): "Debates about scientific realism are centrally connected to almost everything else in the philosophy of science, for they concern the very nature of scientific knowledge. Scientific realism is a positive epistemic attitude towards the content of our best theories and models, recommending belief in both observable and unobservable aspects of the world described by the sciences. This epistemic attitude has important metaphysical and semantic dimensions, and these various commitments are contested by a number of rival epistemologies of science, known collectively as forms of scientific antirealism. This article explains what scientific realism is, outlines its main variants, considers the most common arguments for and against the position, and contrasts it with its most important antirealist counterparts."

I've re-read my post 29, and you're right, it's very misleadingly worded. My apologies. Here's the objectionable passage again: "Instrumentalism is contrasted with realism; the position that scientific theories purport to describe reality; the way things really are out there - truth! Black holes, quarks, species, fields, forces, genes, etc, etc really do exist. It's true! Einstein was well known as being a realist, at least in his later years. For a person like him, and I would suspect the majority of working scientists too, science is ALL about truth. They are not engaged in fiction. They are in the business of getting the world right, or at least trying to." I'd like to withdraw the first sentence and replace it with: "Instrumentalism is contrasted with realism; the position that scientific theories purport to describe reality; the way things really are out there - the theories are true! (or at least truth-like in some way) Just to try to clarify once again, "truth" (as far as I'm concerned anyway, and I believe this is pretty standard) is a property of certain assertoric linguistic entities: statements, propositions, hypotheses, theories, etc. These linguistic entities are the bearers of truth; candidates for being true or false. Reality, on the other hand (as I see it anyway), is simply what there is. Reality is not true or false. Reality is not a candidate for truth or falsehood. Reality just is. But I do see how my careless wording in post 29 might add to the confusion. Thanks to Swansont for pointing that out. . . Meanwhile Moth asks : "just a general question to the philosophers here, if truth is real, what is it's referrant?" I think I'd choose root canal work before even attempting a response at that question. That's a question for philosophers of language -- and that stuff is hard! Betcha 10-1 they all say different things though. Oh, there's no doubt the scientific realist (not necessarily myself) makes the same claim for theories. Once again, I have to wonder... why is there never an evolutionary biologist around when you need one? Or a geologist? Or a paleontologist? Or a chemist? Or a...well, you get it. . . Finally, I've decided to post the third part of the video above because the first few minutes are absolutely critical to an understanding of our entire discussion. I urge everyone to take a look.

Sigh! Confusion continues to reign. This video might be helpful. It's the first in a series of three, just in case anyone gets past the first 5 minutes, or bothers watching at all.

If the link below works, members should be able to read most of the introduction to the book I mentioned earlier : "Quantum Theory and the Flight From Realism" by Christopher Norris. I believe it will be enormously helpful in clearing up the endless confusions in this thread. http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=ZwKDAgAAQBAJ&pg=PR1&lpg=PR1&dq=Quantum+Theory+and+the+Flight+from+Realism:+Philosophical+Responses+to+Quantum+Mechanics What's critical to bear in mind as you read, though, is that the discussion is limited to quantum physics where indeed an antirealist (or instrumentalist) approach, as opposed to a realist approach, seems overwhelmingly to be the norm. In any other area of science, that I can think of at least, realism is far and away the default position. I sense that much of the confusion in this thread is a consequence of certain members being actively involved in the QM milieu, where an instrumentalist attitude holds sway, and projecting this approach to all of science... ... and the result is absurdity. (in the form of claims such as "science is not about truth")

No, sorry. We've covered this already -- more than once. See earlier in the thread, or do your own research on the correspondence theory of truth. Or propose one of your own.

With no disrespect intended, your post above makes very clear you have utterly failed to grasp the issues. That goes for certain other posters too, and THAT is why the thread hasn't moved forward, if indeed it hasn't (although I'm inclined to agree with you). This is very frustrating. Basic issues in philosophy, such as the distinction between semantics (questions of truth), metaphysics (questions of reality), and epistemology (questions of knowledge) continue to be conflated with disastrous consequences. I said earlier in the thread: if you spoke hard-core physics to me, it would doubtless go over my head. The reverse is happening here: those trained in science repeatedly fall into the same philosophical muddles. The only difference is, I can easily imagine being in a state where I'm unable to comprehend, or even worse, think I comprehend but don't. Certain other posters evidently cannot. A little intellectual humility might go a long way. Please don't lay your own failure to understand at my doorstep. Thank you! My only suggestion is for you to do a little reading in the relevant areas. Judging by your posts, I gather you've done none whatsoever. Right?

Erm, I don't even know what that means. What I'm doing right now is defending the scientific realist position; viz., that at least in some cases, we have good reasons for believing that our best theories are true, or approximately so; that they should be interpreted as purporting to describe reality, not interpreted as merely instruments, or calculating devices, or useful fictions, or models that have no bearing on the way things really are out there. To be quite frank, I don't have any strong opinions on these matters, nor do I see any need to adopt any particular position, on the grounds that I'm...um, insignificant. Early in this thread, though, I took up the realist cause to refute the manifestly absurd claim that "science has (almost) nothing to do with truth".

re: smoking causing cancer I'd humbly suggest that many scientists -- as well as the rest of we hooligans -- take that causal relationship (which is, of course, unobserveable) to be very real. I suspect they'd also be happy to explain the causal mechanism to you at some length.

Well, tell that to your children next time they ask, "Daddy, is it true that smoking causes cancer?" Has it been logically demonstrated? Ans: Nope Do we have good reasons for believing it to be a true statement? Ans: I'd say so. How about you? "Then why beat a dead horse?" But yeah, it's a philosophical question; a question of epistemology; a question of what is the appropriate stance to take vis-à-vis scientific theories. Beat a dead horse? Um, coz it's raining outside.

See my post on Inference to the Best Explanation (post # 182). This is the evidence that the realist might appeal to: (This is the realist speaking now) Why should we believe the Darwinian theory of natural selection is true? Ans: Because it is not only consistent with the data (as other hypotheses may be) but it explains the data better than any rival. The "God-did-it" hypothesis is perfectly consistent with the data too (no contradictions are generated), but I daresay most of you here feel it does not explain the data as well as natural selection, and thus, is less likely to be true. Dude, it's already universally conceded by all present, I believe, that a general theory cannot be proven, at least not in any logically compelling sense. This has never been the issue.

Once again, metaphysical and epistemic issues are being confused. In order to adopt a realist attitude, scientists don't need to -- indeed cannot -- prove that any given theory is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. This goes for the rest of us riff-raff too; anyone can adopt the realist stance. This is entirely besides the point. What the realist argues is that, at least in some cases, we have good reasons for believing that our best theories are true or approximately so. Even if it turns out that they, and their theories, are hopelessly wrong, it does not negate the fact that they are engaged in an attempt to accurately describe reality; a quest to produce theories that are true or approximately so. In the meantime, why doesn't someone ask a geologist or an evolutionary biologist how she perceives her own research: (i) an attempt to produce models which are of instrumental value but do not purport to describe reality (natural selection is just a useful fiction), or (ii) get the world right. Sorry, this is just your personal opinion -- to which you are eminently entitled -- but not everyone agrees. Many feel we do have sufficient epistemic warrant for believing our best theories approximate the way things really are; that the entities and mechanisms posited within actually do exist. The realist vs antirealist debate continues as we speak...

For Cuba and StringJunky : "The claim has been thoroughly refuted. Quite obviously, at the very least, some scientists, in some disciplines, in some times and places, feel otherwise. They feel science has a great deal to do with truth. Even if they can't always attain it, or even if they can't know they've attained it, they AIM FOR it; they attempt to afford us with good reasons for believing that our best theories are true, or approximately so." (reproduced from my post # 195) . . . According to some accounts (perhaps apocryphal - it doesn't matter) in the 16th century Ponce de León devoted himself to a search for the Fountain of Youth. Needless to say, he never found it. Presumably it does not exist. But do we now want to say "Ponce de León had nothing to do with the (search for the) Fountain of Youth"? Or how about this: I believe Einstein in his later years, and many physicists today, engage in a search for a Grand Unified Theory of everything. What if they're all hopelessly mistaken? What if there can be no such theory? Do we really want to say "Einstein had nothing to do with GUT"? (Apologies if my physics is inaccurate. I'm not an expert.)

Well, Strange, after reading your latest paroxysm of backpedaling, I feel obliged to once again remind you of your own claims: (i) "Remember, science is not about "truth" but about models that work;" (Strange, post # 5) (ii) "Science has (almost) nothing to do with "truth", whatever that is. For that you want religion." (Strange, post # 10) Do you still stand by these claims? Or would you like to amend or withdraw them? You said these things -- unqualified -- in black and white. Other members may check as they please. How do you reconcile the following (a) and (b)? : (a) "I am quite sure there are physicists out there who think that" ...[... they are attempting to produce theories that are true or approximately so] -- you, directly above with (b) "Science has (almost) nothing to do with "truth", whatever that is" -- you, post #10

It's nice to hear some input from outwith the cabal of usual suspects, so thanks to both Cuba and Scott. Well, the first problem here, as I see it, Cuba, is that it seems you have undertaken -- as certain other members have done -- to speak on behalf of the entire physics community. What gives you that right? Who's to say there are not physicists out there who do feel physics, perhaps even if only in certain areas, is attempting to describe reality? (i.e. is attempting to produce theories that are true or approximately so.) For anyone interested, I've just started what looks like a marvelous book entitled "Quantum Theory and the Flight From Realism" by Christopher Norris. The introduction sketches how Einstein and his acolytes did precisely that -- defended a realist interpretation -- only to succumb to the growing tide of antirealist sentiment (led by Bohr et al) which now constitutes the current orthodoxy, I believe. Perhaps I'll quote some later. Let us bear in mind, though, that this controversy pertains to the domain of QM. Do physicists working in other areas believe their research has no bearing on the way things really are? For example, does Hawking think black holes are merely a useful fiction devoid of any bona fide ontological standing? Ans : I dunno. Do you? The second problem, Cuba, is that physics does not equate with science. Let's all stop being so physics-centric, please. The claims I've been refuting amount to (more or less) : "Science has nothing to do with truth" (note: science, not physics) Even if we grant (which I don't) that antirealism prevails almost without exception in physics, this still leaves... well, everything else! I refuse to believe that all chemists regard theories of atoms and molecules as nothing more than instruments to aid with calculations; I refuse to believe that biologists regard the germ theory of disease as merely a useful fiction; likewise for geologists and tectonic plates, paleontologists and fossils, evolutionists and natural selection; cosmologists and white dwarves, psychologists and thoughts, etc., etc., ad infinitum. The claim that science has (almost) nothing to do with truth was, and remains, preposterous in the extreme.

To the entire site: Don't you see what's happening here? One of "your own" advanced a preposterous claim (about science having nothing to do with truth); a claim that is manifestly false. I suspect he made the claim in the first place due to some trepidation over the implications of what I take to be to the perfectly innocuous word truth and its cognates. The claim has been thoroughly refuted. Quite obviously, at the very least, some scientists, in some disciplines, in some times and places, feel otherwise. They feel science has a great deal to do with truth. Even if they can't always attain it, or even if they can't know they've attained it, they aim for it; they attempt to afford us with good reasons for believing that our best theories are true, or approximately so. I suspect the poster in question (Strange) and his sidekick (Swansont) already see their position is hopeless; alas too much condescension and too many insults have passed under the bridge for them to ever back down, thus the best they can do is squawk "strawman!" "strawman!" ad nauseum. Their calling it one doesn't make it one, though. Anyway, no big surprise so far. What does concern me is this kind of misguided insular loyalty that has prevented any other member from stepping forward and calling bs bs -- the same kind of insular loyalty that induces the Catholic bureaucracy to shield "their own" against wrongdoing. And you wonder why some among us worry about the not-entirely benevolent force of scientism?

As requested: (i) "Remember, science is not about "truth" but about models that work;" (Strange, post # 5) (ii) "Science has (almost) nothing to do with "truth", whatever that is. For that you want religion." (Strange, post # 10) Now, let me pose my question to you again:

@ Studiot - Thanks for explaining. Now, would you mind answering for me what you make of a claim such as "science has nothing (or almost nothing) to do with truth", please? It seems certain other members -- invested with an authority known only to themselves -- are quite content to blithely stipulate, in no uncertain terms, that all scientists, in all disciplines, in all times, and in all places are quite unconcerned with getting the world right; i.e., in producing theories that are true or approximately so. It's a claim I took to be preposterous in the extreme when I first heard it, and I still do so (and I get accused of insensibility. Sigh!). What's your position on this?