Science is the literature of truth?

[Guest Ozmozis]

Science is the literature of truth? in other words, Science is knowledge socially produced...

 

I need some opinions, do you agree or disagree, why?

 

I choose disagree because even science has and will sometimes come to wrong conclusions.

[swansont]

Science is the literature of truth? in other words, Science is knowledge socially produced...

 

I need some opinions, do you agree or disagree, why?

 

I choose disagree because even science has and will sometimes come to wrong conclusions.

 

 

But science is self-correcting. If data shows a conclusion to be wrong, it will adjust.

[Guest Ozmozis]

But science is self-correcting. If data shows a conclusion to be wrong, it will adjust.

 

But Truth can also be defined as absolute accuracy. For example, 1+2=3 is true (I hope!). As long as there are 'unknowns' no scientific theory or law can lay claim to being the truth

[Sisyphus]

No mind is infallible. Hence, there is always danger, even in arithmetic, of wrong conclusions. (You said "I hope" as a joke, but that is indeed what is required.) Does that mean that "knowledge" of any sort is impossible? Perhaps. But that does not mean that all uncertainty is equal, and there is no need to define "knowledge" so strictly. A threshold of uncertainty must be permissible if there is to be any progress (or indeed any rational thought) whatsoever.

 

With that in mind, science is by far the best tool we have for lowering that level of uncertainty, and of exposing just where that uncertainty lies and how deep it goes. Many of its conclusions have more than enough certainty to qualify for any reasonable threshold for "knowledge," and, for those that do not, that is acknowledged as part of the scientific process itself.

[geoguy]

Scientific methodology is not about truth but knowledge. 'Truth' isn't a scientific concept. As stated in a posting above, science is self adjusting and based on evidence. There is no end game.

[Phi for All]

But Truth can also be defined as absolute accuracy. For example, 1+2=3 is true (I hope!). As long as there are 'unknowns' no scientific theory or law can lay claim to being the truth

Newton was the absolute accurate truth for centuries. Everyone knew his view of physics to be true.

 

Until it wasn't quite.

 

The only truths are the ones which can adapt as knowledge grows.

[Bignose]

I read this thread and I think that a quote from Indiana Jones is pretty pertinent:

 

"Archaeology is the search for facts... not truth. If it is truth you are looking for the philosophy class is right down the hall"

 

Put in Science for Archaeology, and you got yourself a winner.

[fredrik]

But science is self-correcting. If data shows a conclusion to be wrong, it will adjust.

 

I think Swansont said it best.

 

Science is not just "knowledge", it's something even better! It's the key to a systematic and efficient acquisition of knowledge. Because knowledge is alive, relative and it changes, so does the truth.

 

The world is full of wrong inconsistencies and faulty predictions, that is on what we thrive. I think ignorance and apparent disorder is food for scienctists. Deviations need not equal failure, it might as well be a golden opportunity to progress if handled correctly.

 

 

/Fredrik

[Gypsy Cake]

But Truth can also be defined as absolute accuracy. For example, 1+2=3 is true (I hope!). As long as there are 'unknowns' no scientific theory or law can lay claim to being the truth

 

I think science is the search for the truth. The only way to get absolute truth would be through a man-made system ie. maths.

[Royston]

I think science is the search for the truth.

 

That would be implying that science has an agenda, which would tarnish the scientific method.

 

The only way to get absolute truth would be through a man-made system ie. maths.

 

I would of thought that a man-made system such as maths, could possibly describe an absolute truth, it's just a tool to quantify observation (yes you could write books on what maths 'is', but let's keep it simple) but I'm not sure an absolute truth could be found 'through' maths, maths is just one of the tools used in science.

 

Apart from that, what would it mean to us to attain absolute truth (theory of everything), I personally find the prospect quite scary, but I'm very dubious that it can be reached.

[swansont]

That would be implying that science has an agenda, which would tarnish the scientific method.

 

Science does have an agenda: figuring out how nature behaves. It's when you look for a specific answer or assume the answer first, and then only investigate that answer, that you confound the scientific method.

[Royston]

Science does have an agenda: figuring out how nature behaves. It's when you look for a specific answer or assume the answer first, and then only investigate that answer, that you confound the scientific method.

 

I agree, I'll reiterate...I meant agenda within the context of what gypsy cake said i.e through science and specifically the scientific method, we shouldn't assume it will lead to some ultimate truth. There was something else I was going to add, but I was up until 2 doing maths last night, and I'm really not functioning to well

[Gypsy Cake]

I'm sorry, I think perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

When I said science was the search for the truth I meant that it was looking for correct understanding of things, not that it was searching for a unifying theory.

And I when I said that math was the only absolute truth I meant that because, in science, it is the only knowledge that we can say is correct.

Sorry for the ambiguity.

 

btw, I'm also scared of a theory of everything. I have an incling, that if found, it would mean things were predetermined (there wasn't free will). Not sure though.