truth


	/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/

truth

Posted By: MrHen Date: 8/12/05 12:05 p.m.
In Response To: Re: more on social darwinism (Ben A. Potter)

Eh... so I started a response and it quickly ballooned on me. Near the end I felt like I was writing a philosophy essay... sorry about that.
As I said, I'm a crack philosopher and I can get carried away. Obviously, I would appreciate it if you pointed out anything ill it contains. Near the end I finally realized we may have been breaking semantics again.
"Actually, scientists do not search for the "truth." Truth is a metaphysical statement."
I don't see how "truth" being a metaphysical statement has anything to do with what science is looking for. Even looking at the Criterion of Demarcation, the criterion has nothing to do with the goal or purpose of the scientific method. It merely involves the process with which the method is carried out.
"Science cannot "prove" anything absolutely in the sense that you can in mathematics. We can refute hypotheses with explicit test implications. Mathematics deals with proofs only because their veracity is couched in terms of their premises."
The key word there is obviously "absolutely". The only difference is that Mathematics refuses to budge their rules and assumptions where Science doesn't have a problem with it. Science can still prove something in a given system or prove a system incorrect.
By looking at each hypothesis as a closed system one could consider each refutal of a hypothesis as a proof. It's only when you take the entire scientific plane into account that it no longer looks like a proof and the same thing can be said of Mathematics. If I doubt the validity of what "+" means I will then doubt the validity of "2 + 2 = 4" and from there I can destroy most of the "proofs" within Mathematics.
The difference is that doubting Mathematics' assumptions seem ludicrous where it is expected for science. Why?
"Empirical science is actually a quest for ever better approximations of the natural world. Scientific methodologies offer a way of understanding empirical reality (as defined by our observations). Science evalutes competing explanations of empirical phenomena."
That's why. Since science deals explicitly with empirical phenomena it must allow for the possibility for competing phenomena, just as you said. But this doesn't deny truth. It is, in fact, the very quest of truth.
Given the fact that every single empirical phenomena could be reduced to a question of metaphysics there must, at some point, be a given set of rules that defines the system. If it there wasn't this foundational set of rules or assumptions the experiment would break the first of the three Criterion you mentioned.
Take these assumed rules and treat them like the Mathematical rules mentioned above and we now have proofs and truth. It has only been abstracted further down the path of empirical phenomena.
Since all of these hypotheses are created and either refuted (Criterion 1) or continually upheld (Criterion 2) there must have been a purpose and that is to eliminate as much as possible of the infinite unknown (Criterion 3). Also known as the search for truth.
The hiccough that comes when applying truth to certain objects is that truth is, as you pointed out, metaphysical. Thanks to the glory of metaphysics this truth can be abstracted to any set of rules such as Mathematics or science.
If one allows for the proofs contained within Mathematics to be considered "truth" than so must all the proofs and disproves held within the confines of whatever system of assumptions science has chosen to wear for the day. Regardless of whether this truth is useful or not it is still truth; it has merely been abstracted to fit within a particular system.
Absolute truth, or the idea that things have an innate, global truth quality to them, is an entirely different form of truth which cannot be empirically verified (failing Criterion 1) unless you have control over what gives each object or idea its truth quality which defeats the entire point of trying to find out what it is (failing Criterions 2 & 3). There is nothing scientific about absolute truth.
"Here's a bit from a lecture I gave a few years back. It might help you understand science a little better.
Those were pretty cool, actually, and did help quite a bit. Thanks.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Replies:

Marathon Pfhor D-M.A. 8/2/05 6:01 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor John Molloy 8/2/05 6:41 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Vid Boi 8/2/05 9:33 a.m.

tBC's and Frigidman's replies are kinda intriguin *NM* D-M.A. 8/2/05 10:49 a.m.

Yeah, maybe. *NM* Bob-B-Q 8/2/05 11:35 a.m.

that's what i would have done MrHen 8/2/05 2:07 p.m.

Re: that's what i would have done Vid Boi 8/2/05 11:48 p.m.

It's not dead, it's 11 pages long and counting! *NM* D-M.A. 8/2/05 11:54 p.m.

11 pages long, counting, and not about 'Thon... *NM* Vid Boi 8/4/05 1:48 a.m.

*sigh* I'll never get a PC Forge... *NM* reagan64 8/5/05 6:14 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Reiginko 8/3/05 5:31 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor D-M.A. 8/3/05 6:01 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Ori 8/3/05 6:33 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Jacke 8/3/05 10:47 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor John Molloy 8/3/05 1:17 p.m.

ehh... MrHen 8/3/05 1:57 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor D-M.A. 8/3/05 6:06 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor John Molloy 8/3/05 6:32 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Forrest of B.org 8/3/05 6:59 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor John Molloy 8/3/05 7:06 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Vid Boi 8/4/05 2:15 a.m.

Someone thinks I'm bright! Happy joy joy :-) *NM* D-M.A. 8/4/05 3:53 a.m.

if by all men... MrHen 8/4/05 4:55 a.m.

Re: if by all men... Forrest of B.org 8/4/05 6:01 p.m.

I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest? *NM* Steve Levinson 8/4/05 7:18 p.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Forrest of B.org 8/4/05 8:43 p.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest D-M.A. 8/4/05 11:09 p.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Forrest of B.org 8/5/05 7:57 a.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest John Molloy 8/5/05 2:28 p.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Forrest of B.org 8/6/05 10:07 p.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest John Molloy 8/6/05 11:42 p.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Johannes Gunnar 8/7/05 12:31 a.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Johannes Gunnar 8/7/05 12:31 a.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Vid Boi 8/7/05 12:49 a.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Andrew Nagy 8/8/05 6:46 a.m.

Off! Weirdness... *NM* Vid Boi 8/8/05 4:10 p.m.

I like the fishnets Forrest blake37 8/5/05 3:06 a.m.

LOL! i like your outfit Forrest! :P *NM* Johannes Gunnar 8/5/05 4:32 a.m.

Re: if by all men... Vid Boi 8/7/05 12:56 a.m.

I hate that term. MrHen 8/7/05 6:15 a.m.

Re: I hate that term. Steve Levinson 8/7/05 10:45 a.m.

agreed MrHen 8/8/05 5:01 a.m.

Re: agreed Steve Levinson 8/8/05 6:03 a.m.

Re: agreed blake37 8/8/05 6:50 a.m.

Re: agreed Steve Levinson 8/8/05 8:14 a.m.

Re: agreed MrHen 8/8/05 10:26 a.m.

Re: agreed blake37 8/8/05 4:03 p.m.

Re: agreed Vid Boi 8/8/05 4:32 p.m.

haha, yeah... MrHen 8/8/05 5:39 p.m.

Re: haha, yeah... Tyler 8/9/05 6:41 a.m.

ah, okay MrHen 8/8/05 9:59 a.m.

Re: I hate that term. Dylan 8/9/05 4:28 a.m.

uh... now i'm confused... MrHen 8/9/05 5:17 a.m.

Re: uh... now i'm confused... Dylan 8/9/05 8:59 a.m.

hating terminals? *gasp!* MrHen 8/9/05 9:23 a.m.

Re: uh... now i'm confused... AlfredMordeir 8/9/05 7:00 p.m.

Re: uh... now i'm confused... MrHen 8/10/05 4:52 a.m.

Re: uh... now i'm confused... Dylan 8/11/05 4:39 a.m.

I usually don't copy articles but, Oh well. AlfredMordeir 8/11/05 8:54 a.m.

Social Darwinism Dave 8/10/05 2:53 a.m.

more on social darwinism MrHen 8/10/05 5:10 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Reiginko 8/10/05 6:47 a.m.

Ohh... MrHen 8/10/05 8:46 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Vid Boi 8/10/05 11:40 a.m.

Haha, that's terrible. *NM* MrHen 8/11/05 5:05 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism MrHen 8/11/05 5:19 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Dave 8/11/05 7:10 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Reiginko 8/11/05 7:49 a.m.

god of the gaps MrHen 8/11/05 8:32 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Forrest of B.org 8/11/05 9:19 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Forrest of B.org 8/11/05 9:17 a.m.

not a fan of the link MrHen 8/12/05 12:56 p.m.

Re: not a fan of the link Forrest of B.org 8/12/05 1:16 p.m.

meh MrHen 8/12/05 2:24 p.m.

Spirituality vs Rationality Forrest of B.org 8/12/05 3:34 p.m.

Re: Spirituality vs Rationality MrHen 8/13/05 10:42 p.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Ben A. Potter 8/11/05 11:20 a.m.

truth MrHen 8/12/05 12:05 p.m.

Re: truth Ben A. Potter 8/12/05 12:40 p.m.

agreed MrHen 8/12/05 1:01 p.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Ben A. Potter 8/10/05 9:04 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Steve Levinson 8/10/05 12:25 p.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Ben A. Potter 8/10/05 1:12 p.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Dave 8/10/05 6:35 p.m.

Re: Social Darwinism Dylan 8/11/05 5:02 a.m.

Creationism MrHen 8/11/05 5:15 a.m.

Re: Social Darwinism Ben A. Potter 8/11/05 11:10 a.m.

Re: Social Darwinism Enkidu 8/11/05 4:20 p.m.

"Fundamentalists" and slippery-slopes MrHen 8/9/05 5:27 a.m.

Has anybody noticed.... blake37 8/9/05 7:06 a.m.

and talk about off-topic . . . *NM* Steve Levinson 8/9/05 7:30 a.m.

:P MrHen 8/9/05 7:52 a.m.

Re: Has anybody noticed.... D-M.A. 8/9/05 7:58 a.m.

Re: "Fundamentalists" and slippery-slopes Vid Boi 8/10/05 11:53 a.m.

Re: "Fundamentalists" and slippery-slopes blake37 8/10/05 12:53 p.m.

oops... *blushes* *NM* MrHen 8/11/05 5:16 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Forrest of B.org 8/3/05 6:54 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor John Molloy 8/3/05 7:02 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Forrest of B.org 8/3/05 7:13 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor John Molloy 8/3/05 7:20 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Forrest of B.org 8/3/05 7:40 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Reiginko 8/4/05 12:19 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Vid Boi 8/4/05 2:19 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Forrest of B.org 8/4/05 6:19 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Reiginko 8/5/05 6:57 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Forrest of B.org 8/5/05 8:14 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Vid Boi 8/4/05 2:24 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor MrHen 8/4/05 5:06 a.m.

oh... that makes much more sense... MrHen 8/4/05 5:11 a.m.

Re: oh... that makes much more sense... Steve Levinson 8/4/05 1:04 p.m.

Rumor update ukimalefu 8/4/05 7:49 p.m.

Re: Rumor update RedMage13 8/5/05 3:49 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Andrew Nagy 8/8/05 7:53 a.m.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:
: Eh... so I started a response and it quickly ballooned on me. Near the end I : felt like I was writing a philosophy essay... sorry about that. : As I said, I'm a crack philosopher and I can get carried away. Obviously, I : would appreciate it if you pointed out anything ill it contains. Near the : end I finally realized we may have been breaking semantics again. : "Actually, scientists do not search for the "truth." Truth is : a metaphysical statement." : I don't see how "truth" being a metaphysical statement has anything : to do with what science is looking for. Even looking at the Criterion of : Demarcation, the criterion has nothing to do with the goal or purpose of : the scientific method. It merely involves the process with which the : method is carried out. : "Science cannot "prove" anything absolutely in the sense that : you can in mathematics. We can refute hypotheses with explicit test : implications. Mathematics deals with proofs only because their veracity is : couched in terms of their premises." : The key word there is obviously "absolutely". The only difference : is that Mathematics refuses to budge their rules and assumptions where : Science doesn't have a problem with it. Science can still prove something : in a given system or prove a system incorrect. : By looking at each hypothesis as a closed system one could consider each : refutal of a hypothesis as a proof. It's only when you take the entire : scientific plane into account that it no longer looks like a proof and the : same thing can be said of Mathematics. If I doubt the validity of what : "+" means I will then doubt the validity of "2 + 2 = : 4" and from there I can destroy most of the "proofs" within : Mathematics. : The difference is that doubting Mathematics' assumptions seem ludicrous where : it is expected for science. Why? : "Empirical science is actually a quest for ever better approximations : of the natural world. Scientific methodologies offer a way of : understanding empirical reality (as defined by our observations). Science : evalutes competing explanations of empirical phenomena." : That's why. Since science deals explicitly with empirical phenomena it must : allow for the possibility for competing phenomena, just as you said. But : this doesn't deny truth. It is, in fact, the very quest of truth. : Given the fact that every single empirical phenomena could be reduced to a : question of metaphysics there must, at some point, be a given set of rules : that defines the system. If it there wasn't this foundational set of rules : or assumptions the experiment would break the first of the three Criterion : you mentioned. : Take these assumed rules and treat them like the Mathematical rules mentioned : above and we now have proofs and truth. It has only been abstracted : further down the path of empirical phenomena. : Since all of these hypotheses are created and either refuted (Criterion 1) or : continually upheld (Criterion 2) there must have been a purpose and that : is to eliminate as much as possible of the infinite unknown (Criterion 3). : Also known as the search for truth. : The hiccough that comes when applying truth to certain objects is that truth : is, as you pointed out, metaphysical. Thanks to the glory of metaphysics : this truth can be abstracted to any set of rules such as Mathematics or : science. : If one allows for the proofs contained within Mathematics to be considered : "truth" than so must all the proofs and disproves held within : the confines of whatever system of assumptions science has chosen to wear : for the day. Regardless of whether this truth is useful or not it is still : truth; it has merely been abstracted to fit within a particular system. : Absolute truth, or the idea that things have an innate, global truth : quality to them, is an entirely different form of truth which cannot be : empirically verified (failing Criterion 1) unless you have control over : what gives each object or idea its truth quality which defeats the entire : point of trying to find out what it is (failing Criterions 2 & 3). : There is nothing scientific about absolute truth. : "Here's a bit from a lecture I gave a few years back. It might help you : understand science a little better. : Those were pretty cool, actually, and did help quite a bit. Thanks.

If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message,
please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:

If necessary, enter your password below:
Password:

Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email maintainer@bungie.org
Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12.

Marathon Pfhor	D-M.A.	8/2/05 6:01 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	John Molloy	8/2/05 6:41 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Vid Boi	8/2/05 9:33 a.m.
tBC's and Frigidman's replies are kinda intriguin NM	D-M.A.	8/2/05 10:49 a.m.
Yeah, maybe. NM	Bob-B-Q	8/2/05 11:35 a.m.
that's what i would have done	MrHen	8/2/05 2:07 p.m.
Re: that's what i would have done	Vid Boi	8/2/05 11:48 p.m.
It's not dead, it's 11 pages long and counting! NM	D-M.A.	8/2/05 11:54 p.m.
11 pages long, counting, and not about 'Thon... NM	Vid Boi	8/4/05 1:48 a.m.
sigh I'll never get a PC Forge... NM	reagan64	8/5/05 6:14 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Reiginko	8/3/05 5:31 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	D-M.A.	8/3/05 6:01 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Ori	8/3/05 6:33 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Jacke	8/3/05 10:47 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	John Molloy	8/3/05 1:17 p.m.
ehh...	MrHen	8/3/05 1:57 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	D-M.A.	8/3/05 6:06 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	John Molloy	8/3/05 6:32 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Forrest of B.org	8/3/05 6:59 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	John Molloy	8/3/05 7:06 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Vid Boi	8/4/05 2:15 a.m.
Someone thinks I'm bright! Happy joy joy :-) NM	D-M.A.	8/4/05 3:53 a.m.
if by all men...	MrHen	8/4/05 4:55 a.m.
Re: if by all men...	Forrest of B.org	8/4/05 6:01 p.m.
I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest? NM	Steve Levinson	8/4/05 7:18 p.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Forrest of B.org	8/4/05 8:43 p.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	D-M.A.	8/4/05 11:09 p.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Forrest of B.org	8/5/05 7:57 a.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	John Molloy	8/5/05 2:28 p.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Forrest of B.org	8/6/05 10:07 p.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	John Molloy	8/6/05 11:42 p.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Johannes Gunnar	8/7/05 12:31 a.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Johannes Gunnar	8/7/05 12:31 a.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Vid Boi	8/7/05 12:49 a.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Andrew Nagy	8/8/05 6:46 a.m.
Off! Weirdness... NM	Vid Boi	8/8/05 4:10 p.m.
I like the fishnets Forrest	blake37	8/5/05 3:06 a.m.
LOL! i like your outfit Forrest! :P NM	Johannes Gunnar	8/5/05 4:32 a.m.
Re: if by all men...	Vid Boi	8/7/05 12:56 a.m.
I hate that term.	MrHen	8/7/05 6:15 a.m.
Re: I hate that term.	Steve Levinson	8/7/05 10:45 a.m.
agreed	MrHen	8/8/05 5:01 a.m.
Re: agreed	Steve Levinson	8/8/05 6:03 a.m.
Re: agreed	blake37	8/8/05 6:50 a.m.
Re: agreed	Steve Levinson	8/8/05 8:14 a.m.
Re: agreed	MrHen	8/8/05 10:26 a.m.
Re: agreed	blake37	8/8/05 4:03 p.m.
Re: agreed	Vid Boi	8/8/05 4:32 p.m.
haha, yeah...	MrHen	8/8/05 5:39 p.m.
Re: haha, yeah...	Tyler	8/9/05 6:41 a.m.
ah, okay	MrHen	8/8/05 9:59 a.m.
Re: I hate that term.	Dylan	8/9/05 4:28 a.m.
uh... now i'm confused...	MrHen	8/9/05 5:17 a.m.
Re: uh... now i'm confused...	Dylan	8/9/05 8:59 a.m.
hating terminals? gasp!	MrHen	8/9/05 9:23 a.m.
Re: uh... now i'm confused...	AlfredMordeir	8/9/05 7:00 p.m.
Re: uh... now i'm confused...	MrHen	8/10/05 4:52 a.m.
Re: uh... now i'm confused...	Dylan	8/11/05 4:39 a.m.
I usually don't copy articles but, Oh well.	AlfredMordeir	8/11/05 8:54 a.m.
Social Darwinism	Dave	8/10/05 2:53 a.m.
more on social darwinism	MrHen	8/10/05 5:10 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Reiginko	8/10/05 6:47 a.m.
Ohh...	MrHen	8/10/05 8:46 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Vid Boi	8/10/05 11:40 a.m.
Haha, that's terrible. NM	MrHen	8/11/05 5:05 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	MrHen	8/11/05 5:19 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Dave	8/11/05 7:10 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Reiginko	8/11/05 7:49 a.m.
god of the gaps	MrHen	8/11/05 8:32 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Forrest of B.org	8/11/05 9:19 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Forrest of B.org	8/11/05 9:17 a.m.
not a fan of the link	MrHen	8/12/05 12:56 p.m.
Re: not a fan of the link	Forrest of B.org	8/12/05 1:16 p.m.
meh	MrHen	8/12/05 2:24 p.m.
Spirituality vs Rationality	Forrest of B.org	8/12/05 3:34 p.m.
Re: Spirituality vs Rationality	MrHen	8/13/05 10:42 p.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Ben A. Potter	8/11/05 11:20 a.m.
truth	MrHen	8/12/05 12:05 p.m.
Re: truth	Ben A. Potter	8/12/05 12:40 p.m.
agreed	MrHen	8/12/05 1:01 p.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Ben A. Potter	8/10/05 9:04 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Steve Levinson	8/10/05 12:25 p.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Ben A. Potter	8/10/05 1:12 p.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Dave	8/10/05 6:35 p.m.
Re: Social Darwinism	Dylan	8/11/05 5:02 a.m.
Creationism	MrHen	8/11/05 5:15 a.m.
Re: Social Darwinism	Ben A. Potter	8/11/05 11:10 a.m.
Re: Social Darwinism	Enkidu	8/11/05 4:20 p.m.
"Fundamentalists" and slippery-slopes	MrHen	8/9/05 5:27 a.m.
Has anybody noticed....	blake37	8/9/05 7:06 a.m.
and talk about off-topic . . . NM	Steve Levinson	8/9/05 7:30 a.m.
:P	MrHen	8/9/05 7:52 a.m.
Re: Has anybody noticed....	D-M.A.	8/9/05 7:58 a.m.
Re: "Fundamentalists" and slippery-slopes	Vid Boi	8/10/05 11:53 a.m.
Re: "Fundamentalists" and slippery-slopes	blake37	8/10/05 12:53 p.m.
oops... blushes NM	MrHen	8/11/05 5:16 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Forrest of B.org	8/3/05 6:54 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	John Molloy	8/3/05 7:02 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Forrest of B.org	8/3/05 7:13 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	John Molloy	8/3/05 7:20 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Forrest of B.org	8/3/05 7:40 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Reiginko	8/4/05 12:19 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Vid Boi	8/4/05 2:19 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Forrest of B.org	8/4/05 6:19 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Reiginko	8/5/05 6:57 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Forrest of B.org	8/5/05 8:14 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Vid Boi	8/4/05 2:24 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	MrHen	8/4/05 5:06 a.m.
oh... that makes much more sense...	MrHen	8/4/05 5:11 a.m.
Re: oh... that makes much more sense...	Steve Levinson	8/4/05 1:04 p.m.
Rumor update	ukimalefu	8/4/05 7:49 p.m.
Re: Rumor update	RedMage13	8/5/05 3:49 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Andrew Nagy	8/8/05 7:53 a.m.



	Your Name:
	Your E-Mail Address:
	Subject:
	Message: : Eh... so I started a response and it quickly ballooned on me. Near the end I : felt like I was writing a philosophy essay... sorry about that. : As I said, I'm a crack philosopher and I can get carried away. Obviously, I : would appreciate it if you pointed out anything ill it contains. Near the : end I finally realized we may have been breaking semantics again. : "Actually, scientists do not search for the "truth." Truth is : a metaphysical statement." : I don't see how "truth" being a metaphysical statement has anything : to do with what science is looking for. Even looking at the Criterion of : Demarcation, the criterion has nothing to do with the goal or purpose of : the scientific method. It merely involves the process with which the : method is carried out. : "Science cannot "prove" anything absolutely in the sense that : you can in mathematics. We can refute hypotheses with explicit test : implications. Mathematics deals with proofs only because their veracity is : couched in terms of their premises." : The key word there is obviously "absolutely". The only difference : is that Mathematics refuses to budge their rules and assumptions where : Science doesn't have a problem with it. Science can still prove something : in a given system or prove a system incorrect. : By looking at each hypothesis as a closed system one could consider each : refutal of a hypothesis as a proof. It's only when you take the entire : scientific plane into account that it no longer looks like a proof and the : same thing can be said of Mathematics. If I doubt the validity of what : "+" means I will then doubt the validity of "2 + 2 = : 4" and from there I can destroy most of the "proofs" within : Mathematics. : The difference is that doubting Mathematics' assumptions seem ludicrous where : it is expected for science. Why? : "Empirical science is actually a quest for ever better approximations : of the natural world. Scientific methodologies offer a way of : understanding empirical reality (as defined by our observations). Science : evalutes competing explanations of empirical phenomena." : That's why. Since science deals explicitly with empirical phenomena it must : allow for the possibility for competing phenomena, just as you said. But : this doesn't deny truth. It is, in fact, the very quest of truth. : Given the fact that every single empirical phenomena could be reduced to a : question of metaphysics there must, at some point, be a given set of rules : that defines the system. If it there wasn't this foundational set of rules : or assumptions the experiment would break the first of the three Criterion : you mentioned. : Take these assumed rules and treat them like the Mathematical rules mentioned : above and we now have proofs and truth. It has only been abstracted : further down the path of empirical phenomena. : Since all of these hypotheses are created and either refuted (Criterion 1) or : continually upheld (Criterion 2) there must have been a purpose and that : is to eliminate as much as possible of the infinite unknown (Criterion 3). : Also known as the search for truth. : The hiccough that comes when applying truth to certain objects is that truth : is, as you pointed out, metaphysical. Thanks to the glory of metaphysics : this truth can be abstracted to any set of rules such as Mathematics or : science. : If one allows for the proofs contained within Mathematics to be considered : "truth" than so must all the proofs and disproves held within : the confines of whatever system of assumptions science has chosen to wear : for the day. Regardless of whether this truth is useful or not it is still : truth; it has merely been abstracted to fit within a particular system. : Absolute truth, or the idea that things have an innate, global truth : quality to them, is an entirely different form of truth which cannot be : empirically verified (failing Criterion 1) unless you have control over : what gives each object or idea its truth quality which defeats the entire : point of trying to find out what it is (failing Criterions 2 & 3). : There is nothing scientific about absolute truth. : "Here's a bit from a lecture I gave a few years back. It might help you : understand science a little better. : Those were pretty cool, actually, and did help quite a bit. Thanks.
	If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message, please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
	Optional Link URL:
	Optional Link Title:
	If necessary, enter your password below:
	Password: