scientific method and truth ... (page 4)

talesin

Here's a clickable link for you, s+g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleatoric_music

I hope that's the one you meant. :)

No, but since there is such a difference science can never simply describe the world as it really is but only through socially constructed language concepts that are applied to the real world. What science can and does do well is provide useful conceptualisations for how how the world works that have practical applications, rather than provide a definitive account of the world as it really is as such. Which is pretty much was I said in my first post.

But if it all boil down to your assessment of the subjectivity of language (something which i dont really agree on but oh well) it is only by implication saying something about science and would apply equally well for any method to discover true things about the world.

Furthermore, as i have said, i think you are overstating the case by far by speculating stone-age men are unable to understand one apple plus one apple equal to apples. I dont think you would agree for a long time with for instance a haircutter who felt his linguistic description of your "ears" as "hair" (and arent that just as good as any other description?) was just as valid as yours, but nevertheless, even under this critisism science still result in a better language (however inexact) than any other method for describing the world simply because the vocabulary and description obtained by science can in fact be checked to be in predictive agreement with the world.

Take the apple-example, the scientific principle which could be discovered by moving apples (or whatever they might call them and however they might seperate them from the trees) is that when you move discrete objects from one bowl to another they do not increase or decrease in number. This is not something you can simply chalk up to linguistics, it is a fact of nature which all normal children across culture eventually pick up at an early age on their own through experience.

bohm

s+g: As i wrote in my opening post, there are some statements about the world which are more true than others, and we need a way to tell them apart. Science is just one suggestion, a very inefficient and expensive one is that, and i am all ears for better ways. If there is a way to tell true statements about the world from false which does not require one to experience and experiment with the world that would be some breakthrough, but i cant think of any suggestions which work.

soft+gentle

Bohm, I'm not denying the effectiveness of the scientific method and of science but I personally don't know enough science to form an allegiance to it, not to the extent that you have anyway. Also when I see science v religion debates on jwn that provide new insights into what we call the natural world and when these debates help people break free from dogmatic thinking I am very happy

regarding your point to SBF above that 1 apple plus 1 apple = 2 apples - Yes it is true that this would be true to stoneage man just as it is true to us.

But on the other hand apple + branch + tree does not equal apple + bowl + table even in mathematics (pls excuse me overstating the case)

but nonetheless stone age man would recognise an apple even if it was presented to him in a bowl on a table.

OnTheWayOut

"Scientific Method" leads to facts and facts are true in the sense that they are tested as accurate.

"Truth" can mean 'that which is true' but philosophy complicates the word excesssively. "Truth" starts to include that which is unverifiable by scientific method.

scotoma

Science is collective knowledge. The scientific method is how we obtain collective knowledge.

Truth is an evaluation of how well an idea can be defended against all contradictions.

soft+gentle

thank you all for your comments - mulling them over.

yes I see what you mean, otwo and scotoma. PUtting this together with what others have said, what I like so far is that there are contingent aspects to scientific the collection of knowlege. For example as bohm and sbf have pointed out, knowledge is contingent upon what one wants to know at the time and on what is possible to know at any one time and then on what remains to be discovered that can be added to what one knows. Or have I got this wrong

edit: also that the scientific method does not lead to absolutism.

slimboyfat

I don't see how you can say one scientific statement is closer to the truth or closer to reality than another, because all statements, even scientific ones, are expressed through language. Comparing one statement with another is a comparison within language itself, it is not a measurement against the reality that is out there.

bohm

SBF:

I don't see how you can say one scientific statement is closer to the truth or closer to reality than another, because all statements, even scientific ones, are expressed through language. Comparing one statement with another is a comparison within language itself, it is not a measurement against the reality that is out there.

REALLY!?. I don't see how you CANNOT see the fallacy of the above statement. Consider the two statements:

(1) Shit is bad to eat for humans

(2) Shit is good to eat for humans

Are you really going to maintain that statement two, that shit is good to eat for humans, is as true as statement (1)?. *really*? Because surely you must then have a definition of truth which is different from how all other people are using the word.

Or do you think the two statements are not scientific? In which case, why not?

scientific method and truth ...

Share this