Truth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-04-2017, 12:55 PM
RE: Truth
(19-04-2017 09:10 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Science's job is to empirically demonstrate whether evolution is real or not.

So you take a view of science that attains truth?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2017, 01:03 PM
RE: Truth
(19-04-2017 12:55 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(19-04-2017 09:10 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Science's job is to empirically demonstrate whether evolution is real or not.

So you take a view of science that attains truth?

If you jump out of a window on the 50th floor, are you going to die, yes or no? No parachutes or funny business.

There are things that can be known. Philosophers are welcome to wank on and on about stuff, but there is an objective reality out there and facts about it can be deduced.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like morondog's post
19-04-2017, 01:07 PM
RE: Truth
(19-04-2017 01:03 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(19-04-2017 12:55 PM)Naielis Wrote:  So you take a view of science that attains truth?

If you jump out of a window on the 50th floor, are you going to die, yes or no? No parachutes or funny business.

There are things that can be known. Philosophers are welcome to wank on and on about stuff, but there is an objective reality out there and facts about it can be deduced.

But does science tell us whether we will die or does it tell you whether others have died in the past? Constructive empiricists don't think science can be used to attain truth about unobservable phenomena. I'm not quite sure whether I take a realist or non-realist view on science. Just curious to see what you all think.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2017, 01:16 PM
RE: Truth
(19-04-2017 01:07 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(19-04-2017 01:03 PM)morondog Wrote:  If you jump out of a window on the 50th floor, are you going to die, yes or no? No parachutes or funny business.

There are things that can be known. Philosophers are welcome to wank on and on about stuff, but there is an objective reality out there and facts about it can be deduced.

But does science tell us whether we will die or does it tell you whether others have died in the past? Constructive empiricists don't think science can be used to attain truth about unobservable phenomena. I'm not quite sure whether I take a realist or non-realist view on science. Just curious to see what you all think.

Do you think you will live forever, or based on the fact that there is zero evidence that a single human has ever escaped death, do you maintain that you *might* just possibly do so? Excluding a change to the playing field like freakish advances in medical science, obviously.

It's fun to give ourselves labels and act like we can choose to "take a realist view of science" or whatever, but frankly, nature giveth not a flying fuck whether you think science accurately describes reality or not. So if you want to know whether science can detect the nature of reality, the answer is: not perfectly. That's why all the revision and fact checking are built into the method. But we don't do science as some kind of game of semantics. It has real application. If it didn't work, we wouldn't use it.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
19-04-2017, 01:24 PM (This post was last modified: 19-04-2017 01:35 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Truth
(19-04-2017 01:07 PM)Naielis Wrote:  But does science tell us whether we will die or does it tell you whether others have died in the past? Constructive empiricists don't think science can be used to attain truth about unobservable phenomena. I'm not quite sure whether I take a realist or non-realist view on science. Just curious to see what you all think.

Sounds like mathematical constructivism which rejects proof by contradiction on infinite sets. No Cantor's diagonalization for you. Since science is all about explaining and predicting observations, how could it approach unobservable phenomena? What is an unobservable phenomenon anyway? Sounds like a contradiction.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
19-04-2017, 01:30 PM
RE: Truth
(19-04-2017 01:16 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(19-04-2017 01:07 PM)Naielis Wrote:  But does science tell us whether we will die or does it tell you whether others have died in the past? Constructive empiricists don't think science can be used to attain truth about unobservable phenomena. I'm not quite sure whether I take a realist or non-realist view on science. Just curious to see what you all think.

Do you think you will live forever, or based on the fact that there is zero evidence that a single human has ever escaped death, do you maintain that you *might* just possibly do so? Excluding a change to the playing field like freakish advances in medical science, obviously.

It's fun to give ourselves labels and act like we can choose to "take a realist view of science" or whatever, but frankly, nature giveth not a flying fuck whether you think science accurately describes reality or not. So if you want to know whether science can detect the nature of reality, the answer is: not perfectly. That's why all the revision and fact checking are built into the method. But we don't do science as some kind of game of semantics. It has real application. If it didn't work, we wouldn't use it.

The question is not whether it accurately describes reality, but whether science merely arrives at empirically adequate theories rather than true theories.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2017, 01:35 PM
RE: Truth
(19-04-2017 01:24 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(19-04-2017 01:07 PM)Naielis Wrote:  But does science tell us whether we will die or does it tell you whether others have died in the past? Constructive empiricists don't think science can be used to attain truth about unobservable phenomena. I'm not quite sure whether I take a realist or non-realist view on science. Just curious to see what you all think.

Sounds like mathematical constructivism which rejects proof by contradiction. Since science is all about explaining and predicting observations, how could it approach unobservable phenomena? What is an unobservable phenomenon anyway? Sounds like a contradiction.

Well unobservable is not permanent. It could be that something is unobservable at a given moment in our history. And you also have to consider that observation here means direct observation. We do not directly observe light waves. We observe the behavior of light and then propose a hypothesis that light is composed of waves. We can't observe individual light waves as waves with only our unaided senses. The reason this type of observability is used is because there is a sense in which anything that aids our senses is itself a technological success based on prior scientific theory. So it has to be counted differently according to the constructive empiricist.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2017, 01:38 PM
RE: Truth
(19-04-2017 01:35 PM)Naielis Wrote:  And you also have to consider that observation here means direct observation. We do not directly observe light waves.

In that sense we can't directly observe anything as long as there are transducers in the way doing what transducers do.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2017, 01:38 PM
RE: Truth
(19-04-2017 01:30 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(19-04-2017 01:16 PM)morondog Wrote:  Do you think you will live forever, or based on the fact that there is zero evidence that a single human has ever escaped death, do you maintain that you *might* just possibly do so? Excluding a change to the playing field like freakish advances in medical science, obviously.

It's fun to give ourselves labels and act like we can choose to "take a realist view of science" or whatever, but frankly, nature giveth not a flying fuck whether you think science accurately describes reality or not. So if you want to know whether science can detect the nature of reality, the answer is: not perfectly. That's why all the revision and fact checking are built into the method. But we don't do science as some kind of game of semantics. It has real application. If it didn't work, we wouldn't use it.

The question is not whether it accurately describes reality, but whether science merely arrives at empirically adequate theories rather than true theories.

The question then becomes, what do you mean by true? You define it in an unambiguous fashion, and then we can work with whether or not an empirically accurate theory is a "true" theory.

To answer your question, taking "true" as an undefined term which all of us magically agree the meaning of, we cannot, by the nature of the method, find out truth absolutely using the scientific method, except maybe in some limited circumstances. Is Einstein an accurate representation of the way gravity works? Sure matches observations well. But is it true? We can't know. Maybe some future experiment will prove him wrong. Maybe there's a deeper theory out there we'll never discover.

I'm glad we have philosophy as a discipline. It keeps the philosophers busy Dodgy

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
19-04-2017, 01:44 PM
RE: Truth
(19-04-2017 01:38 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(19-04-2017 01:30 PM)Naielis Wrote:  The question is not whether it accurately describes reality, but whether science merely arrives at empirically adequate theories rather than true theories.

The question then becomes, what do you mean by true? You define it in an unambiguous fashion, and then we can work with whether or not an empirically accurate theory is a "true" theory.

To answer your question, taking "true" as an undefined term which all of us magically agree the meaning of, we cannot, by the nature of the method, find out truth absolutely using the scientific method, except maybe in some limited circumstances. Is Einstein an accurate representation of the way gravity works? Sure matches observations well. But is it true? We can't know. Maybe some future experiment will prove him wrong. Maybe there's a deeper theory out there we'll never discover.

I'm glad we have philosophy as a discipline. It keeps the philosophers busy Dodgy

It does keep philosophers busy. And please make no mistake of my intention. I'm simply inquiring about the nature of science. I think it's interesting and helpful to try to fully understand a method used so frequently. But true here refers to a correspondence with actual reality.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: