8 Bit Philosophy: Does Science = Truth?

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Science = truth depending on what definition you're using for truth. The problem with the whole train of thought here is that it seems to expect purpose to spring forth from the material when purpose is conceptual. Science's description of fire leaves out purpose because purpose is something thinking minds create. Since fire is a material reaction, it only has a purpose if there is a mind guiding the combustion. Looking for purpose where there is no mind guiding things is a waste of time.

Now we can talk about regressive cause and effect and how there will always be another three "whys" behind every discovery, but this will never get you to a purpose, there is no wizard behind the curtain, just another set of facts to be discovered.

Science is not a set of facts, it is a process, so to say that something is a "scientific fact" and compare that to dogmatic belief/assertions is nonsense. The process of science will get us the best answers we can expect given whatever our capability to run experiments and understand the data that comes from them produces. Science will not give us dogma, it merely offers the best current understanding. This is the strength of science.
 

Devieus

New member
Jul 30, 2014
173
0
0
What's really asked for is the meaning of life. There is none. It's all one big blank and everyone makes their own, it's very presumptuous to assume humans are a grand feature of the universe that we deserve purpose, meaning, or destination. To seek one at all is really just the flaw of our humanity, hence why religion is a necessary evil, and due to humanity's flawed nature, any religion or replacement thereof is flawed in a different set of morals e.g. Islam vs Hinduism, spiritualism vs naturalism, humanism vs animal wrongs groups.
 

Jacked Assassin

Nothing On TV
Jun 4, 2010
732
0
0
The problem with asking why something exist over how something exist is the idea that everything has some greater purpose. Which can lead people applying false purposes when it come to why.
 

drkchmst

New member
Mar 28, 2010
218
0
0
No by definition science is the search for Spoc err truth. Often the truth as we understand it is changing as we form new models that better represent reality. Will reserve further comments for later.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
It's always very strange applying philosophical ideas to science. Science is not, by definition, truth. Science is observation and in many cases projections of what reality is based on a smaller set of evidence than is necessary to say with absolute certainty. Science, at the time of inceptions of a given scientific idea, only offers probability of what reality is.

I partially agree with him in that many people treat science as a religion. It will hold absolute sway over their lives just like church does in a strict Catholic household. But that is not the majority by any stretch. At the end of the day, Science and Philosophy don't even seek the same things. Science shows what can be proven(at least a the majority of it does), philosophy is what asks about meaning or truth or God. There is no overlap in this.

Science is probability to fact, philosophy is always personal truth. Sometimes people find overlap, many times they do not.
 

DerangedHobo

New member
Jan 11, 2012
231
0
0
Devieus said:
To seek one at all is really just the flaw of our humanity
I'd argue that it isn't just limited to 'humanity'. While we have yet to find advanced self-aware life forms other than ourselves I can imagine that any being with the capacity to recognize their own mortality would try to find a 'greater' meaning with some desperation. After all, death is not only the great 'motivator' it is also the great nullifier.

hence why religion is a necessary evil, and due to humanity's flawed nature, any religion or replacement thereof is flawed in a different set of morals e.g. Islam vs Hinduism, spiritualism vs naturalism, humanism vs animal wrongs groups.
I would argue that religion isn't necessary at all. Sure, it gives people a sense of 'purpose' but A. Said purpose is a fabricated one and B. It propagates a lie. It keeps this house of cards stuck together without trying to fix anything.
 

Spyre2k

New member
Apr 9, 2013
52
0
0
The argument of the video is that science can't explain why or meaning behind things and thus it's can't reveal truth. But why and meaning are things open to interpretation and are subjective things, just like any other opinion.

Where as truth is something that is factually correct. Like it is true if I drop a baseball while standing on stop of the Empire State Building it will fall down. Science is based on logic, and in order for logic to work you need to be able to determine if a statement is true or false. Without the ability to determine truth we would not have science.

The mistake people make is the one mentioned at the end of the video. By mistaking scientific truth as meaning or purpose for why something is. But true science makes no meaning or morality judgements on anything, it only states what things are not what does it mean for them to be that way.

The real question is can science ever provide meaning to our lives, you just need to replace truth with meaning everywhere in the video because that is really the argument they are making. And I think they do a good job of it as science can't provide meaning to our lives since it is a purely subjective thing.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
I think this is where a lot of atheist thinkers go astray. Religion existed for more than explaining the physical facts about the universe, so you can't replace religion with science and think you've got all your bases covered. Atheists should tout culture and humanism at least as much as they tout science as the successor to religion.
 

zerragonoss

New member
Oct 15, 2009
333
0
0
Devieus said:
to assume humans are a grand feature of the universe that we deserve purpose, meaning, or destination. To seek one at all is really just the flaw of our humanity
What qulifes this as a flaw though?
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
We also tend to forget that science is humanity's greatest weapon too. The internet likes to mock religion as being a prime motive for a lot of violence in the world, but science has given us to infinitely more horrific means to inflict that violence.

As for science and truth, others have rightfully pointed out that depends on what we mean by truth. I can only add that science, as an ongoing explanation based on the methods available, this means that science is only ever fated to prove itself wrong, given enough. At least the natural sciences anyways.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
Two observations:

One, science requires a study set to work upon. Anything that happens only once, or below the scope of the examination, or is simply eliminated as noise, is outside of the purview of science.

Two, science is as fallible as the humans that practice it. The radio show "Radio Lab" had a horrifying tale of a popular trend of irradiating the thymus gland of infants to prevent SIDS, believing that the "enlarged" glands they found on autopsy of infants killed by it was the cause of the deaths. The glands they were examining in infants were, in fact, normal; the cadavers that had been available to medicine (which in turn became the effective definition of "normal" thymus glands) were all from the very poor whose bodies were automatically given over for research, subject to stresses that caused those glands to atrophy. Shrinking the infants' glands with radiation led to thousands of cancers in later life.

I'm also reminded that for many "science" does indeed become dogma. My self-proclaimed "scientist" friend wrote a long Facebook screed decrying a list of "pseudo-medical" treatments like homeopathy... and acupuncture. In literally two minutes I was able to look up a peer-reviewed study that confirmed acupuncture performed better in treating COPD than placebo.

Science, logic, and mathematics all teach us that there are things we literally cannot know, through things like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Fitch's paradox of knowability, and Gödel's incompleteness theorems. We would be wise, while continuing to pursue knowledge, to heed this.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."-attributed to Mark Twain
 

renegade7

New member
Feb 9, 2011
2,046
0
0
Perspective of an actual researcher here (as in, I work in a lab and everything).

Science is not about objective universal truths. You touched on the point in the video but then missed it in saying that "Science describes the world but does not explain it." But to describe the world is to explain it, and everything beyond what can be quantified and analyzed is a purely subjective value judgment. When you ask whether or not science can provide ultimate truths, you are asking the wrong questions.

Instead, the purpose of science is to seek out and answer those questions about the world that do have objective and verifiable answers. If something exists that is "beyond science", then it is outside of the realm of objective and verifiable truth: when we know something with any level of certainty, then it's because we've done some kind of science on it.

And that's the important point. Science isn't just a body of facts and to do science isn't just to use scientific instruments in a lab, science is any method of testing a conjecture against observations in the physical world to gauge its validity and to do science is to conduct such a test. That's it.

Notice a particular choice of language here. I don't say that we do science to determine whether or not something is "true". The gravest misunderstanding is the assumption that science is about truth. Rather, it's about established validity. For instance, if you were to ask whether or not classical mechanics were "truthful", I wouldn't say yes because it's long since been established that Newtonian physics breaks down at the atomic and cosmological scales. However, I also would not say no because classical physics, despite not being totally and perfectly true, is still extremely useful for understanding many things about the world.

That there is, in some ways, a sort of zeal around many people who are interested in science popularly but not in a professional manner I think has less to do with science and more to do with the fact that science is inevitably involved in a number of important political issues, or at least that arguing from verifiable information forms the basis of reasoned debate. A number of really heavy questions now have a very major scientific component if they aren't entirely scientific already.

When understanding political issues necessarily involves scientific knowledge, then arguing political issues will necessarily involve arguing about science. And when a political controversy becomes a scientific question, it necessarily means that one position will objectively become more correct than the other, and I think this raises the stakes a little more and as a result gets some people even angrier.

Callate said:
I'm also reminded that for many "science" does indeed become dogma. My self-proclaimed "scientist" friend wrote a long Facebook screed decrying a list of "pseudo-medical" treatments like homeopathy... and acupuncture. In literally two minutes I was able to look up a peer-reviewed study that confirmed acupuncture performed better in treating COPD than placebo.
The study in question found that acupuncture works in managing some COPD symptoms because anxiety can exacerbate COPD symptoms, ergo procedures to manage anxiety can provide some relief. In general, that stress can exacerbate the symptoms of many heart, lung, and psychiatric conditions has never been in question. It is, at most, a part of a "lifestyle management" program that can help a COPD patient, but it is not a treatment for COPD. Plus, I don't think you need to be that much of a scientist to be bothered by the prospect of the CAM-pushers putting people's health at risk to make a buck.

Science, logic, and mathematics all teach us that there are things we literally cannot know, through things like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Fitch's paradox of knowability, and Gödel's incompleteness theorems. We would be wise, while
Uncertainty is something that a lot of people misunderstand, and it's to be expected really. What you need to know is that the uncertainty relations do not mean that there is some mystical and impenetrable veil of mystery enshrouding physics at the atomic level but rather it's just one way that physics at that level obey very different rules from physics at the levels we are used to thinking about; it is not that something is obscured from us. It's not hidden variables, it's a chaotic randomness that's just an underlying component of nature at that scale. It does not impose a limit to our understanding, it adds to our understanding by informing us of an elementary part of the behavior of subatomic particles.

Maybe you can think of it this way: you can't know certain things about a particle at the same time past a certain precision in the same way that you cannot fly by flapping your arms. Given either piece of knowledge, a scientist can study that fact to gain more knowledge and improve understanding.

Fitch's paradox is not a strike at science either. If the conclusion to Fitch's paradox is taken to be that there cannot be objective or absolutely knowable truths, then this actually works very well with the scientific method, which works on the same assumption. Remember: science does not deal in absolute truths, it deals with increasingly valid conjectures and increasingly general statements verified through observation.

Godel's incompleteness theorems are about mathematics and not concerned with the subjects of any sort of limitations of mathematical knowledge. Essentially, Godel's theorems state that there can never be a single, closed-form mathematical expression or formula that can take any possible math problem and return a non-trivial answer. This does not limit our understanding, it adds to it by showing us important things about the nature of mathematics and what it means to solve a mathematical problem.
 

mgs16925

New member
Mar 28, 2008
59
0
0
You know, Nietzche did have further thoughts on this. Almost the entirety of his work, in fact. Ludicrously simplified version: objective meaning doesn't exist, make something up.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Baresark said:
It's always very strange applying philosophical ideas to science. Science is not, by definition, truth. Science is observation and in many cases projections of what reality is based on a smaller set of evidence than is necessary to say with absolute certainty. Science, at the time of inceptions of a given scientific idea, only offers probability of what reality is.

I partially agree with him in that many people treat science as a religion. It will hold absolute sway over their lives just like church does in a strict Catholic household. But that is not the majority by any stretch. At the end of the day, Science and Philosophy don't even seek the same things. Science shows what can be proven(at least a the majority of it does), philosophy is what asks about meaning or truth or God. There is no overlap in this.

Science is probability to fact, philosophy is always personal truth. Sometimes people find overlap, many times they do not.
I find that amusing given the very myopic definition of philosophy you have to use to make the distinction you are.

Take a look through history some time and you'll note that science (and mathematics) are, in fact a form of philosophy. They are the philosophical arts. That subset of philosophy that by chance happens to have the most practical applications...

That practicality aside, they are still the same as any other philosophy in form. To argue that they are distinct from the subject they are a subset of is somewhat absurd.

[hr]
Anyway, as to the topic... It largely depends on what you mean by truth.

Even on an entirely descriptive sense, what science describes may not be reality. (in other words, it may not be 'true', in an absolute sense).

One common error that seems to arise is confusing the model for reality itself.

Science has given us many models - descriptions of things (usually mathematical) that have properties that can be measured and rules that can predict what should happen.

The utility of these models is clear in that what the model measures and predicts, tends to be very similar to what we can measure of reality.

But it is a mistake to assume that because these models predict reality, that they are reality.

A mathematical model isn't reality. There's no way to prove that, and there's no reason to believe it to be true.
It describes things we know about reality, but that doesn't make it reality.

Any more than the mathematical definition of a circle is actually the same as a circle constructed of physical material...

That's to say nothing of the question raised of 'why'. Why is a tricky question, because to begin with it may not be a valid question to be asking in the first place.

But as I've seen a few times too often, more than a few scientists seem quite prone to giving a description of 'how', and claiming it is a description of 'why'.

This isn't to say asking 'why' is actually a valid thing to do in the first place, but claiming a description of 'how' answers 'why' is wrong regardless.

Then of course there's some things which are absurdly circular. Like claims made about how the universe was formed that rely on measured properties of the universe...
Of course the answer this will give are going to be inherently meaningless, because they are self-fulfilling.
They leave out any possible ways in which it could have happened differently, because they depend on rules and logic that exist as a consequence of the current state of the universe.
It's obvious that whatever caused the universe to exist would lead to it having it's current properties, because otherwise we wouldn't measure the properties it currently has.
That answers precisely nothing.

It shouldn't be held up as some amazing piece of deduction, logic, science or anything else. Because it isn't.
It's the same as saying 'god did it', but combines it with the intellectual dishonesty of using a philosophical system that shouldn't allow for that kind of vague statements as 'proof' of such an empty statement...
 

Dr.Susse

Lv.1 NPC
Apr 17, 2009
16,498
2
43
Man I'm enjoying this series so far.

I've only ever read late Nietzsche 'the Anti-Christ and the twilight of the idols for example' so I don't know his full works; but From the couple of videos these guys have done on him I think I'd like to read his earlier stuff. The stuff before he went mad.....
 

Nimcha

New member
Dec 6, 2010
2,383
0
0
Good points though I do really get annoyed by the 'science = religion' statements. Religion is unchanging dogma by definition. Science is not.
 

remnant_phoenix

New member
Apr 4, 2011
1,439
0
0
Spyre2k said:
The argument of the video is that science can't explain why or meaning behind things and thus it's can't reveal truth. But why and meaning are things open to interpretation and are subjective things, just like any other opinion.

Where as truth is something that is factually correct. Like it is true if I drop a baseball while standing on stop of the Empire State Building it will fall down. Science is based on logic, and in order for logic to work you need to be able to determine if a statement is true or false. Without the ability to determine truth we would not have science.

The mistake people make is the one mentioned at the end of the video. By mistaking scientific truth as meaning or purpose for why something is. But true science makes no meaning or morality judgements on anything, it only states what things are not what does it mean for them to be that way.

The real question is can science ever provide meaning to our lives, you just need to replace truth with meaning everywhere in the video because that is really the argument they are making. And I think they do a good job of it as science can't provide meaning to our lives since it is a purely subjective thing.
That's a common misconception.

As a student of philosophy, I can assure you that the discipline is not all subjective. Far from it, the basis of philosophy is the systems of logic that inform how we process facts, ideas, and arguments into any useful structure, and how we avoid concepts that seem logical on the surface, but actually aren't (logical fallacies). These logic systems are the underlying basis of any application of logic to reality, including science. Fun fact: what we call now "science" was originally known as "the philosophy of nature."
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
CrystalShadow said:
Baresark said:
It's always very strange applying philosophical ideas to science. Science is not, by definition, truth. Science is observation and in many cases projections of what reality is based on a smaller set of evidence than is necessary to say with absolute certainty. Science, at the time of inceptions of a given scientific idea, only offers probability of what reality is.

I partially agree with him in that many people treat science as a religion. It will hold absolute sway over their lives just like church does in a strict Catholic household. But that is not the majority by any stretch. At the end of the day, Science and Philosophy don't even seek the same things. Science shows what can be proven(at least a the majority of it does), philosophy is what asks about meaning or truth or God. There is no overlap in this.

Science is probability to fact, philosophy is always personal truth. Sometimes people find overlap, many times they do not.
I find that amusing given the very myopic definition of philosophy you have to use to make the distinction you are.

Take a look through history some time and you'll note that science (and mathematics) are, in fact a form of philosophy. They are the philosophical arts. That subset of philosophy that by chance happens to have the most practical applications...

That practicality aside, they are still the same as any other philosophy in form. To argue that they are distinct from the subject they are a subset of is somewhat absurd.
I'm fully aware of how science is a branch of philosophy. It would be pointless for me to identify them as completely different things, something I did not do. But, historically, science from say 500 years ago is vastly different from what it is today. I'm not referring to the amount of known scientific knowledge either. That is clearly far different now than it was then. Science, it's highest form, used to look down on material evidence. Anyone who used scientific evidence was in fact thought to be bad at it as it is best performed in the mind of the scientist. That is utterly different from the science we know today of course.

I'll use Galileo Galilei as an example of someone who fell prey to that very notion. Now, we all know that he had to fight the common knowledge of the time that earth was the center of the universe, and the church on the matter had to be fought as well. But what a lot of people don't know is that he was also facing the scrutiny of scientists who scoffed at the evidence he had, not because it was insufficient, but evidence was considered the lowest form of science possible. He was literally thought to be a bad or low class scientist among scientists. By modern standards he may have been a a cryptozoologist (of the big foot hunting variety).
 

Devieus

New member
Jul 30, 2014
173
0
0
DerangedHobo said:
I'd argue that it isn't just limited to 'humanity'. While we have yet to find advanced self-aware life forms other than ourselves I can imagine that any being with the capacity to recognize their own mortality would try to find a 'greater' meaning with some desperation. After all, death is not only the great 'motivator' it is also the great nullifier.
That's not up to me to say, I'd just guess that considering the size of the universe, such life forms may very well exist, but that same size makes that statement moot for us in our lifetime. Maybe we could ask the dolphins or the octopuses what they think of this though.

I would argue that religion isn't necessary at all. Sure, it gives people a sense of 'purpose' but A. Said purpose is a fabricated one and B. It propagates a lie. It keeps this house of cards stuck together without trying to fix anything.
I know it's a lie, you know it's a lie, most people here probably know it's a lie, but not everyone is as strong-willed enough to live without this nonsense. Case in point is the growing numbers of Daesh.

zerragonoss said:
Devieus said:
to assume humans are a grand feature of the universe that we deserve purpose, meaning, or destination. To seek one at all is really just the flaw of our humanity
What qulifes this as a flaw though?
Trying to come off as more than we really are is not exactly a virtue, it's hubris, it's what empowers mad or greedy people by claiming they have the answer.