Truth and Science: One And The Same?

[asianaussie]

Moving away from the boring realm of practicality and real-world dilemmas, I delve into my forte, and present a completely theoretical and potentially foolish topic: whether science is indeed truth, and whether finding truth is akin to the scientific method.

This world is filled with theories, all of which are purely of human invention. The theory of gravity is just a theory: there could be a giant, invisible being consisting entirely of a giant mouth, continually inhaling to create a sense of pull. Moving away from that ludicrous example, to what degree can science be labelled as truth, and is human truth the same as universal truth?

The second issue concerns the scientific method of isolating variables and establishing a cause-and-effect relationship. Is the scientific method looking for truth, or merely searching for validity to support a theory? Does confirmation of a hypothesis entail recognition of truth, or merely recognition of plausibility?

While my direct queries are underlined, please post all thoughts you have on the topic, everybody's opinion on this is valid. Even better, post what first hit you when you saw the title.

If you have completed an International Baccalaureate course or general philosophy degree, then I feel your pain, and ask for your contributions even more warmly.

 

[ballin4life]

Science is looking for truth, but it cannot ever establish truth. It can only show untruths to be false. We think that things like gravity are "true" but someone could discover a situation tomorrow where gravity doesn't hold, and then gravity would be falsified.

The only truth is mathematics and logic.

 

[asianaussie]

Would you say mathematics is a universal truth then?

 

[Dre89]

Considering that science seems to be turned on its head about every 800 years, I'm hesitant to call it truth, though I would call it probable fact.

I'm sensing that a scientism debate will soon emerge.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

The only truth is mathematics and logic.

How do you know? Both of these are just constructs of our minds. And while they seem to have a nice grasp on the universe around us, there is nothing to say they're an intrinsic part of the universe.

 

[Dre89]

Either they're an intrinsic part of the universe, or the universe does not exist beyond the mind.

 

[asianaussie]

Maybe the universe as we know it is itself only a convenient term for the collective existence in which our defined rules can apply

What if, in another hypothetical universe, our maths was all incorrect? I can't tell you how, because I don't live in that universe, but the possibility that our maths is not universally universal (ugh bad phrasing) is a remote, albeit existing one.

I love this ability to go purely theoretical and get away relatively unscathed.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Nope. Mathematics has to be correct. The thing about math is, you start out with some definitions and a few things taken to be true. Then from those definitions and axioms, you create propositions, theorems, and all kinds of fun stuff. I don't care what alternate universe you come up with, the mathematics will be true just the same. (Whether it applies to the universe in question or not is a different story though. Our normal geometric theories wouldn't do much good in an obviously non-euclidean universe. However, that wouldn't prevent them from being true under the conditions given.)

 

[Reaver197]

First, you should establish what you mean by "truth".

Otherwise, this debate will not have much grounding to go on.

 

[asianaussie]

If I were to be really philosophical, I'd just steal the previous lines and say truth is that which forms an intrinsic part of the universe.

In slightly more practical terms, I would define truth as something not arguable as false, but then extend this definition to concepts not arguable as false using accepted knowledge - facts.

Anyway, I don't recall the names of the two major theories of mathematical existence I've learned of, but one involves mathematics being an ultimate truth and humans merely discovering it, and the other involves humans inventing mathematics from scratch. Taking that first theory, would maths vary from universe to universe?

If we can't accept maths as an ultimate truth, the sciences, which require maths to function, will by extension be only circumstantially true - when we assume the truth of maths. It's more than likely that mathematics, as we are accustomed to, is a truth in our universe, but I'd prefer to think on a greater scale, one at which our minds are at risk of imploding. Is maths representative of truth no matter what?

In the end, I would argue that maths is a definite truth, but only in the universe concerned - maths would likely vary from system to system.

 

[ballin4life]

Your definition of truth is circular, as knowledge is defined in terms of truth (Knowledge is classically defined as justified true belief - and at least for me I don't see how you can define knowledge without truth).

Also I think math is true in the sense that it is true in any universe. How can this statement
(Men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal)
ever be false?

 

[asianaussie]

Alright, why don't you offer a definition of truth? It's not easy to define, and now I look again it is circular >_>

The idea behind my reasoning is completely hypothetical: We are men, Men can only think using system A, therefore Men cannot think using system B.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

For the sake of this debate, I'm going to attempt to offer a practical and realistic definition of truth. I believe that truth can be considered an equation: y=f(x). For example, "x" constitutes the inputs of a given situation and "y" can be framed as the results where the function "f(x)" is a truth that ties the two factors together. If we hold something to be true, such as throwing a ball in the air at a certain velocity, angle, distance, and height (x), then we expect the ball to fall down at a certain velocity, angle, distance, and height (y).

As long as the proper inputs are maintained, then the results should also come into fruition. This is not to demean the complexity of the function designated as truth. The "cause-and-effect" relationship at times is a gross generalization to explain how many phenomena work and is designed to focus on inputs and outputs. The truth itself remains brazenly complex, yet the practical aspect of a given truth should also not be scrutinized as long as its consistency is maintained.

Truths should hold true as both isolated factors and as cohesive system working in tandem with related functional theorems that have been designated to be true. Establishing relational capacity often times elucidates further characteristics of a given truth, i.e. oxygen is needed by humans in order to live, oxygen is also highly electronegative, oxygen's high electronegative nature plays a role in Electron Transport Chain that is needed in order to support human life. This differs vastly from employing relational logic in order to establish a given statement to be true as such methods do not involve repetition or experimentation to ensure that the relationship truly exists.

It would be ideal if multiple truths could be discerned to the point of working as a compound function in which the following is considered, y=5x and x+y=10. Whereby inputs and outputs are cross-applicable through both bodies of truth. Again this example oversimplifies the variable complexity that two truths could share in a given relationship.

To reiterate, something can be established to be true under cases of repetition (same inputs, same results.) The standard deviation value of fluctuation for resultant outputs remains something that could serve for further experimentation (hypothesi/hypothesis). This is not to state that all faults to a given "truth" should be written off as simply being some increment of "standard-deviation." If strong values of deviation are held to be true under many cases, then the "truth" should be reconsidered. The notion of an absolute truth remains difficult to test, as many inputs do not retain perfect integrity and therefore it is almost impossible to discern such facets via human judgment.

A hypothesis is often a single card used to build a larger card tower that consists of a theory. Scientists are often afraid to lists theory as truths, as truth implies an absolute and infallible position. A theory on the other hand can be proven to be falsifiable under a given hypothesis. Therefore at times causing the theory to be scrutinized and reexamined card by card, hypothesis by hypothesis. For the sake of this explanation, a truth bears similar implications to a theorem, in that it can't hold true for all inputs, therefore the reason why inputs are employed within a given range [x1,x2] for a given truth and thus relates back to the position of considering deviation.

 

[asianaussie]

I swear definitions aren't supposed to be this long. It's law or something.

Anyway, you're saying that truth is truth, even if it is not the whole truth, so long as it can be verified both in standalone examples and in relation to previously established truths? Kay. Nice discussion going here but I don't see debate happening :\

I also find your treatment of the input-affecting factors as constants intriguing. Constants can change drastically in varied ways, so the same type of truth can result in different examples of truth, which can't be covered by simply altering the original equation. Theoretically, you could devise an overarching formula that covers how truth itself can be varied, but to be honest I'd rather not delve into that while I'm still a lowly peon.

Are you talking about oxidative capacity, because I'm fairly sure that electronegativity, while not technically misused here, is based on and applies mainly to already-bonded molecules, not something like oxygen's capacity to take in electrons for reuse...

Alright then, would you say that truth cannot be likened to a pinpoint, and instead should be referred to a distinct area of conceptualisation? As you've already said, truth is very rarely singular outside purist mathematics, and sometimes isn't singular even in purist mathematics (see: ambiguous case in trigonometry, lol maths is NOT my strong point).

I would argue the range of uncertainty in experimental science results should be taken into account as possible truths, assuming the experiment's results were both accurate and precise. This is truth at the limits of human capacity: we are unable to isolate the exact experimental truth, thus concepts such as precision and constructs such as the significant figure system exist as attempts to narrow down the range of truths we have determined.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Oxidation is discussed in the context of a chemical reaction. Electronegativity is discussed in the context of atoms. I was focusing on oxygen as an atom and how that translates into its use in a chemical reaction. Therefore I chose to focus on it from an atomic context. Usually in the context of a molecule, considerations are given to intermolecular van der waals forces and the term used to characterize the relationship are dipoles. In a carbonyl compound in which carbon is joined to oxygen with a double bond, oxygen is designated as a negative dipole and carbon as a positive dipole as shared electrons in that relationship tend to circle around the oxygen more than the carbon due to a disparity in relative electronegativity (differing charge). If I'm incorrect then I would appreciate it if you would correct me. I enjoy such topics considerably.

Electronegativity, symbol χ (the Greek letter chi), is a chemical property that describes the ability of an atom (or, more rarely, a functional group) to attract electrons (or electron density) towards itself.

A substance that gains electrons in a redox chemical reaction.

 

[asianaussie]

My definition for electronegativity is 'an atom/element's tendency to attract a pair of covalently or otherwise bonded electrons', but it's only first year university level, so it's perfectly possible I'm completely wrong. This is the definition I'm to be tested on, so I won't go straight out and say it's incorrect.

Okay, it's the oxygen atom which accepts the electrons. It might be stated as half of an oxygen molecule, but that's for the sake of equations. Therefore, you can say that it's the atom's natural electronegativity that allows it to fulfill its role, so long as you imply that it is the atom's ability to attract and accept electrons to which you refer.

If that if the case, you are perfectly correct, though, as far as perfect correctness can take you in the context we were discussing a couple posts back.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Truth is to be in accord with reality.

Science is the study of reality through observation and experimentation.

I think science works perfectly fine at the observation level, but for some reason it is continually asked "why?". We can observe that two masses pull towards each other, but we can't observe the why.

I think its very fun to ask "why?" but I don't think it can ever be proven as there is no method to directly observe it.

For example, why does a baseball fly from your hands when you throw it instead of falling to the ground? Why does the ball force the air molecules aside in order to move forward? We can observe that it does, but even through infinite amounts of observation we can't actually answer the why.

 

[Dre89]

Truth is apparently the unity of thinking and reality.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Dre where did you get that definition? I found mine with similar wordings in a few places but did not stumble onto anything quite like that. Basically, I don't understand how "thinking" relates to "truth".

Unless thats capital 'T' Truth which refers to some higher being/higher thought state of mind stuff which is mostly philosophical and irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Dre89]

It's a metaphysical concept of truth.

I'm probably going to misrepresent it, but I'll give it a crack anyway.

Truth entails falsehood, they are complimentary. Falsehoods only exist in thinking, because only in the mind something which "not is" exists. Falsehood, therefore, is the disunity of thinking and reality.

Therefore, as truth is "what is", and thinking precedes truth (for the compliment of truth, falsehood, only exists in thought), then truth is the unity of thinking and reality.

Take that with a giant pile of salt. By no means am I claiming that is the standard metaphysician's explanation if the theory, it is merely mine.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Oh I understand your definition now. I agree. Its just a step above my definition; more specific. Truth means the idea or thought is in accordance with reality.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Either they're an intrinsic part of the universe, or the universe does not exist beyond the mind.

Okay. I would like to you to explain.

Nope. Mathematics has to be correct. The thing about math is, you start out with some definitions and a few things taken to be true. Then from those definitions and axioms, you create propositions, theorems, and all kinds of fun stuff. I don't care what alternate universe you come up with, the mathematics will be true just the same. (Whether it applies to the universe in question or not is a different story though. Our normal geometric theories wouldn't do much good in an obviously non-euclidean universe. However, that wouldn't prevent them from being true under the conditions given.)

Okay, it's a system that the can be used to discover things. I'll grant you that, but how do you know it's actually an objective intrinsic part of the universe? You've just made an assertion, that's all you've done.

 

[ballin4life]

I think that it's impossible to conceive a world where mathematics is wrong.

I think that mathematics is actually independent from the universe, not an intrinsic part of it. We could imagine the universe to be different, but we can't do the same for math.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Its possible to conceive it. Its possible for an alternate universe to have differing mathematics such as 2 groups of 2 apples is separately 4 but combined is 3. It is predictable, so a different math could be applied. It is also possible for a universe to be completely random and have no math, though its nearly impossible for us to understand it without experiencing it. Its likely life could not exist there, fundamentally.

 

[ballin4life]

I don't see what you are saying. Math is not tied to the universe in any way. Math is the logical steps moving from axioms to conclusions. It's possible to make up some axioms where your apples scenario holds.

The application of math to the universe is of course not necessarily true. I don't see how your apples scenario could hold physically, given the definition of the natural numbers and our conception of entities such as apples, but still if it were the case then it would not change math itself. We would just have to use different axioms in our description of the universe.

But I maintain that, for example, this statement (Men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal) is always true regardless of the universe.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

You can't make that assumption. You have never been to another universe to experience any differences and therefore cannot make any statement about inter-universal universals. You have to battle with the possibility that any part of those logical progressions are invalid in another universe or that logic simply doesn't have any hold at all.

Can we keep this conversation to things inside our own universe, and more importantly, things we can actually observe and make reasonable assumptions about?

 

[Dre89]

But even if you haven't been to another universe, there are still things that you can assume must be present simply for a universe to exist, such as being, and principles which allow for relationality and co-existence of individual beings. Things like that.

 

[ballin4life]

You can't make that assumption. You have never been to another universe to experience any differences and therefore cannot make any statement about inter-universal universals. You have to battle with the possibility that any part of those logical progressions are invalid in another universe or that logic simply doesn't have any hold at all.

Can we keep this conversation to things inside our own universe, and more importantly, things we can actually observe and make reasonable assumptions about?

What does the universe have to do with the mind?

Would you say that the statement (I think therefore I exist) is true?

Math does not require a universe, only a mind.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

But even if you haven't been to another universe, there are still things that you can assume must be present simply for a universe to exist, such as being, and principles which allow for relationality and co-existence of individual beings. Things like that.

You can assume all you want, I'm just saying that we have no possible way of knowing for sure and that it is technically possible for all concepts of reality as we know it to be false in another universe.

What does the universe have to do with the mind?

A mind works within a universe. The mind is sculpted by the universe both physically (in the sense that the mind obeys all laws of the universe) and internally (by observing and interacting with the universe the mind learns and assumes things based on the properties of the universe)

Not to mention that organisms might not be able to exist in a universe that breaks all laws of reality as we know it.

Would you say that the statement (I think therefore I exist) is true?

In our universe, yes.

Math does not require a universe, only a mind.

Math is external from the mind. Does a flower require a viewer?

 

[freeman123]

A lot of people over complicate science. If I say "I think this glass has Dr. Pepper in it", and I taste it to see that it does have Dr. Pepper in it, I've just conducted a scientific experiment. Science is simply testing a hypothesis to see whether or not it's true.

Of course, science can never be 100% certain. For example, it could be that there's another drink that tastes like Dr. Pepper, such as Mr. Pibb, that I was unaware of when I conducted the original experiment. That's what causes some people to say that "science doesn't know everything." They're right. Science doesn't know everything. Science doesn't claim to know everything. Science is self correcting. If a scientific conclusion is wrong, you would have to use science to show that it's wrong.

Science is currently the best method that we have for discovering truth. If there was a better method, you'd have to use science to demonstrate that it was better.

 

[Dre89]

Except for the fact that you can't use science to demonstrate that science concludes truths.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

 

[ballin4life]

You can't use anything to demonstrate that anything concludes truths about the universe.

There is no logical a priori justification for science besides the fallacious inductive reasoning that "it's always worked before."

But what other method is there for even guessing at the truth of the universe?

Another thing to note is that science does not even find truths, it simply falsifies untruths. You come up with something that you think is true, like gravity, but then you have to rework your theory when counterexamples are shown, like a helium balloon.

From the video 5 types of non-scientific "truth" are listed

1) Logic/Math - I agree that these aren't scientific, and they are truths.

2) Metaphysical "truths" - other minds exist, the world exists, the past actually happened - none of these are necessarily true. One might argue that science would in fact support these also, as the simplest explanation for our experiences is that these three things are true.

3) Ethical beliefs - these are not truth, and definitely not "things we are all rational to accept".

4) Aesthetic judgments - again unrelated to truth

5) Science itself - I agree that this isn't scientifically proven, but I also don't think that it constitutes truth either.

 

[Dre89]

The point of the video is to demonstrate that it is fallacious to assume that only science can conclude truths, or assumptions that we consider rational.

 

[ballin4life]

I don't see why that's a fallacious ASSUMPTION to make. You could define truth as that which can be concluded through science (plus math), for example.

Without a good definition of truth, though, I don't see where this discussion can go.

 

[Dre89]

The video shows that there are other truths we conclude outside of science, that's why it's wrong to say only science concludes truths.

 

[ballin4life]

What if I claim that I disagree with all of those truths besides the ones concluded by science?

Can you give another example? (I think that I covered all the ones that the person in the video mentioned, if not please correct me)

 

[Dre89]

Then you'd be illogical.

Metaphysical truths precede scientific ones.

You can only believe science concludes truths insofar as you accept the metaphysical assumptions that the world is real, other minds exist, the worl wasn't created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age etc.

 

[ballin4life]

Science supports those truths in some sense. The easiest explanation of my observations is that those things are true. It is simple inductive reasoning for example to say that other humans have minds, because I have a mind.

It's entirely possible that those things are false, but that is the case for any scientific conclusion.

Also, I might not accept those truths, but accept the truth that (if the world exists, the past happened, etc. then this scientific conclusion holds)

 

[Dre89]

Anything at all inferred from observation presupposes the metaphysical truth that observation correlates to reality.

 

[ballin4life]

Indeed, but I might define "reality" as my observations, or if not, say that I only agree with the statement (if observations correlate to reality then this scientific conclusion holds)