New here/Objective Truth

[timeuntotime]

Hi, I'm new. I hope this is the appropriate place to post. Sorry if this is a dumb question.

Is objective truth theoretical or actual? 

[Phi for All]

If this were in Philosophy, you might get different answers, but in the sciences truth and proof take a back seat to the preponderance of evidence. Most of the scientific method is designed to minimize opportunities to fool ourselves, so we are able to trust our explanations as being the best supported. 

Also, in science a theory is the strongest form of "truth" there is. A theory has mountains of supportive evidence, but we don't call it truth because we want to keep testing it against what we observe, always.

[timeuntotime]

Thank you for the scientific answer, I prefer it rather than a philosophical one.

Edited November 8, 2017 by timeuntotime

[iNow]

In science, truth is provisional and always subject to change when new evidence becomes available. Objectively it’s a better approach.

[timeuntotime]

I had also posted the question in a fb group and woke up to an unbelievable amount of hostility. New level of appreciation for your answer Phi for All, thank you.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, timeuntotime said:

I had also posted the question in a fb group and woke up to an unbelievable amount of hostility.

This is a big part of why objectivity is the better approach, as iNow said. People who think in terms of Truth often get pretty emotional about it, which clouds reason. That leads to a lot of guesswork they assume must be right, making them even more adamant.

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, timeuntotime said:

Hi, I'm new. I hope this is the appropriate place to post. Sorry if this is a dumb question.

Is objective truth theoretical or actual? 

It's not a dumb question at all, in fact, I think it's sciences Achilles heel, in a way, as it leaves a layperson a backdoor to challenge what is essentially a truth/fact with common misconceptions and specious observations; which ultimately are manipulated by our politicians.

[timeuntotime]

I was trying to wrap my head around some quantum physics concepts, the idea that common sense and logic (I guess now based on observation) can be so wrong is just baffling.

[Mordred]

QM is a good topic on how common sense can often lead one to the wrong conclusions. Phi for All gave an excellent answer 

[tuco]

I do not think the word "truth" should/can be used in/by science. In other words, the question in OP is a philosophical question.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, timeuntotime said:

I was trying to wrap my head around some quantum physics concepts, the idea that common sense and logic (I guess now based on observation) can be so wrong is just baffling.

Unfortunately, the term "logic" has been hijacked (Damn you, Spock!), and has become synonymous with "common sense" (which is also an unfortunate term, since it's often neither). They've come to mean "Something about this clicks, and I think I may understand it!" And once we think we understand something, it's easy to convince ourselves that we DO understand it, and that our explanation is the Truth. Confirmation bias is a vicious vortex, and it takes some serious critical thinking skills to escape its influence. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, timeuntotime said:

I was trying to wrap my head around some quantum physics concepts, the idea that common sense and logic (I guess now based on observation) can be so wrong is just baffling.

There are (have always been) things explained by science that are counterintuitive. For example, it seems "obvious" that the sun rises and sets and so it must be going round the Earth. It took a long time before people realised that it was the rotation of the Earth. Children still get confused by this: "why can't we feel the Earth moving" etc.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

There are (have always been) things explained by science that are counterintuitive. For example, it seems "obvious" that the sun rises and sets and so it must be going round the Earth. It took a long time before people realised that it was the rotation of the Earth. Children still get confused by this: "why can't we feel the Earth moving" etc.

Charlatan! Next you'll be claiming trees grow from the air and not the ground!

[Mordred]

Well depending on how you follow charge flow lightning can be viewed as starting from the ground towards the sky lol. (I lost track of how many high school exams this came up)

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Unfortunately, the term "logic" has been hijacked (Damn you, Spock!), and has become synonymous with "common sense" (which is also an unfortunate term, since it's often neither). They've come to mean "Something about this clicks, and I think I may understand it!" And once we think we understand something, it's easy to convince ourselves that we DO understand it, and that our explanation is the Truth. Confirmation bias is a vicious vortex, and it takes some serious critical thinking skills to escape its influence. 

 

this comment reminds me of a particular book written in the Star trek series where Enterprise encounters a race that claimed the Universe moves and not the ship.

When Kirk argues against it, Spock states "Your forgetting one thing Captain, it obviously works for them"

They repeat this theme in one of their movies, with Scotty stating "it never occured to me to think of space moving" when discussing how to use a transporter to deliver Kirk back to Enterprise under warp.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Mordred