Jump to content


Photo

What Is Truth Scientifically?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
31 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 February 2012 - 12:57 PM

We creationists often here the phrase: Evolution is a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence. But the thing that often puzzles me is the evolutionists inability to actually define what truth is in science. So the questions is:

What is truth defined scientifically?

#2 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 February 2012 - 05:30 PM

I was going to answer you Ike, but I think I'll wait...

#3 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 25 February 2012 - 06:44 PM

Operational science is based on observable, repeatable tests. Forensic science is an attempt to figure out an event or events in the past. Once data is gathered, we then use deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning to attempt to describe how the world works around us.

Naturalism is a philosophy often applied or assumed in science that there is nothing beyond natural processes (supernatural beings) that can interact with and affect natural processes, thus if this assumption is false, then an unknown number of scientific conclusions may also be false. Still, observational science can tell us what is generally observed to be true, hence scientific laws exist.

Scientific certainty is the idea that conclusions drawn through deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning are either probable, possible, improbable, or impossible. When a conclusion is consistent through many experiments and is seen as probable such as the laws of gravity, this is considered truth. This "truth" can be disrupted by new data at any time, but disputes with highly probably data are met with much skepticism because bias toward the high degree of certainty is inevitable.

Note that the idea that God doesn't exist is not a scientific position, but a philosophical position. The test of Creationism is the test of a belief in recorded history, not just supernaturalistic philosophy. Either God came to earth in the human form as Jesus Christ, performed miracles, and raised Himself from the dead as the Bible records, He did not, or it is unknowable. We examine the forensic evidence to come to the conclusion. This is a scientific inquiry.

#4 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5720 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 February 2012 - 08:01 PM

There is no truth scientifically because in science there are no absolutes. Since the door should be open for falsification via new evidence. Hence the possibility of falsification means that nothing can be claimed absolutely true...

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 26 February 2012 - 06:26 AM

I find it ironic that there is only one side posting here.

#6 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 28 February 2012 - 05:58 PM

I'm going to respond in faith and say in the context of man's science, Truth scientifically is God's revelation to mankind.
  • JayShel likes this

#7 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 28 February 2012 - 06:23 PM

There is no truth scientifically because in science there are no absolutes. Since the door should be open for falsification via new evidence. Hence the possibility of falsification means that nothing can be claimed absolutely true...

Can you elaborate? What do you mean? What are you trusting in? I've heard this answer alot and I believed it for awhile, while still considering myself a christian... I'll give more feedback if you don't mind... I have to reject your premise that we can't know anything for me personally, because then that brings into question my identity (do I exist) and morality... I recently (a couple months ago) watched part 2 of 5 of the 5th ape, it had a fallacy in it, if I remember right) that Natural Selection doesn't have a purpose.... Dawkins probably meant that Darwinism doesn't have a purpose but he was talking about Natural Selection... I began to study purpose and character...... might not be related.... I guess that's all I care to say for now... , tired,....

#8 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 February 2012 - 07:32 PM

I find it ironic that there is only one side posting here.


I don't! :)
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 February 2012 - 07:50 PM

I guess that settles it. the reason the other side won;t post in this thread is because they know they cannot meet the criteria for real truth. And they also know that if they try to define truth scientifically it would be a mess that they would end up painting themselves into a corner with. But this proves a lot about any misconception that there might have been.

#10 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5720 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 28 February 2012 - 09:48 PM

Can you elaborate? What do you mean? What are you trusting in? I've heard this answer alot and I believed it for awhile, while still considering myself a christian... I'll give more feedback if you don't mind... I have to reject your premise that we can't know anything for me personally, because then that brings into question my identity (do I exist) and morality... I recently (a couple months ago) watched part 2 of 5 of the 5th ape, it had a fallacy in it, if I remember right) that Natural Selection doesn't have a purpose.... Dawkins probably meant that Darwinism doesn't have a purpose but he was talking about Natural Selection... I began to study purpose and character...... might not be related.... I guess that's all I care to say for now... , tired,....

Can you elaborate? What do you mean? What are you trusting in? I've heard this answer alot and I believed it for awhile, while still considering myself a christian... I'll give more feedback if you don't mind... I have to reject your premise that we can't know anything for me personally, because then that brings into question my identity (do I exist) and morality... I recently (a couple months ago) watched part 2 of 5 of the 5th ape, it had a fallacy in it, if I remember right) that Natural Selection doesn't have a purpose.... Dawkins probably meant that Darwinism doesn't have a purpose but he was talking about Natural Selection... I began to study purpose and character...... might not be related.... I guess that's all I care to say for now... , tired,....


No problem I probably wrote something wrong and is the root of confusion. I generally only claim this in debates of evolution since evolution is the only thing I know of that is claimed to be "fact" (thus truth), but hasn't been demonstrated to be so.

The underlying basis of my point is falsification, in science there is always the potential for falsification hence if this potential exists, (no matter how solid the claim seems), it cannot be regarded as "truth" (thus absolute), as there is always this cloud of doubt hanging over it.

What we can do in science is state, "relative truths" (could be wrong name sorry), whereby we make the claim that this thing will occur if X conditions are met. Hence the claim being true or not is relative to the conditional factors. This isn't a statement of truth as such, rather it is merely a statement of the requirements of the process or claim.

#11 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 29 February 2012 - 09:15 AM

This is where many atheists make their mistake. Science is not equivalent to truth. Science is a way of approaching the natural world, it develops hypotheses and theories and tests them. Any atheist that rejects God for "scientific reasons" does not understand science.

#12 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:50 AM

This is where many atheists make their mistake. Science is not equivalent to truth. Science is a way of approaching the natural world, it develops hypotheses and theories and tests them. Any atheist that rejects God for "scientific reasons" does not understand science.


But they have to have something to believe in. This is why they want it to be true so badly.

#13 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 02 March 2012 - 01:46 PM

No problem I probably wrote something wrong and is the root of confusion. I generally only claim this in debates of evolution since evolution is the only thing I know of that is claimed to be "fact" (thus truth), but hasn't been demonstrated to be so.

The underlying basis of my point is falsification, in science there is always the potential for falsification hence if this potential exists, (no matter how solid the claim seems), it cannot be regarded as "truth" (thus absolute), as there is always this cloud of doubt hanging over it.

What we can do in science is state, "relative truths" (could be wrong name sorry), whereby we make the claim that this thing will occur if X conditions are met. Hence the claim being true or not is relative to the conditional factors. This isn't a statement of truth as such, rather it is merely a statement of the requirements of the process or claim.

So in your worldview does falsification or even laws of logic exists? But then if it's true that no truth's exist that would be a true statement -- someone's probably said this before...

I have also found that my personal hedonism does not equate to love... Where is justice in your worldview or mine? I do not know God's way's in the context of morality, I have to pray for guidance.

Edit: I do know God's way's by reading His Word and seeking Him, and they're written on my heart, but His way's aren't mine. I am a sinner, I acknowledge my sin before Him, may he continue to change my ways to be more like Him.

Surely laws exist in your worldview?

Edited by rico, 02 March 2012 - 02:28 PM.


#14 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 02 March 2012 - 02:32 PM

Science is a systematic way to approach the natural world. Science does not claim truth, those who claim it does does not understand science. Creation, on the other hand, can claim truth.

#15 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5720 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 02 March 2012 - 09:06 PM

So in your worldview does falsification or even laws of logic exists? But then if it's true that no truth's exist that would be a true statement -- someone's probably said this before...

I have also found that my personal hedonism does not equate to love... Where is justice in your worldview or mine? I do not know God's way's in the context of morality, I have to pray for guidance.

Edit: I do know God's way's by reading His Word and seeking Him, and they're written on my heart, but His way's aren't mine. I am a sinner, I acknowledge my sin before Him, may he continue to change my ways to be more like Him.

Surely laws exist in your worldview?


My statements all applies to science, which is what I thought I made clear. Remember the thread is "What is truth scientifically", I have responded to this by saying that due to the nature of science there is no "scientific truth".


The principles of falsification are what drives the scientific method and as such for science to abide by such principles there can be no absolutes in science.

I can look at my right arm and claim truthfully that I have a right arm... However such a thing is not a "scientific endeavor"

#16 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 04 March 2012 - 01:24 PM

My statements all applies to science, which is what I thought I made clear. Remember the thread is "What is truth scientifically", I have responded to this by saying that due to the nature of science there is no "scientific truth".


The principles of falsification are what drives the scientific method and as such for science to abide by such principles there can be no absolutes in science.

I can look at my right arm and claim truthfully that I have a right arm... However such a thing is not a "scientific endeavor"

I'm confused, one of the definitions I have for science is 'knowledge'.... How does your view of science relate to mine?
I'm also going to ask another related question in another thread. Thanks for your time.

#17 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 04 March 2012 - 09:04 PM



So in your worldview does falsification or even laws of logic exists? But then if it's true that no truth's exist that would be a true statement -- someone's probably said this before...

I have also found that my personal hedonism does not equate to love... Where is justice in your worldview or mine? I do not know God's way's in the context of morality, I have to pray for guidance.

Edit: I do know God's way's by reading His Word and seeking Him, and they're written on my heart, but His way's aren't mine. I am a sinner, I acknowledge my sin before Him, may he continue to change my ways to be more like Him.

Surely laws exist in your worldview?



My statements all applies to science, which is what I thought I made clear. Remember the thread is "What is truth scientifically", I have responded to this by saying that due to the nature of science there is no "scientific truth".


The principles of falsification are what drives the scientific method and as such for science to abide by such principles there can be no absolutes in science.

I can look at my right arm and claim truthfully that I have a right arm... However such a thing is not a "scientific endeavor"



Actually, that would be incorrect Gilbo. If you look at your right arm, you are observing it; therefore that is indeed a “scientific endeavor”, as ‘observation’ is one of the five (or six/seven, dependent upon who you follow in that regard ) steps in the empirical scientific method. You can perform a far better example of this empirical scientific method by following all the steps, but the observance of your arm cannot be simply dismissed as unscientific.

Further, falsifiability is basically a sham, brought on to lend credence to evolution in general, but macro-evolution specifically, and is taught as fact in schools and universities. Poppers falsifiability principle is a philosophical viewpoint, not inductive evidence; therefore it is not scientific, but rather hypothetical in nature. It is thrown into the conversation by relativists to water down science, and it is easily refuted. In fact, it can be refuted by your own example:

Question – Does Gilbo have a right arm?
Answer – Gilbo observed his right arm, touched his right arm, measured the length of his right arm, and used the hand of his right arm to retrieve several items from the lab table. Gilbo performed these experiments exactly ten times to verify each result (induction). He then had two of his colleagues perform the exact same steps of the empirical scientific method on his right arm.

Conclusion: Gilbo absolutely has a right arm, based upon verified experimentation of the empirical scientific method. This is, in fact a “scientific truth”.

#18 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5720 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 04 March 2012 - 11:06 PM

Actually, that would be incorrect Gilbo. If you look at your right arm, you are observing it; therefore that is indeed a "scientific endeavor", as 'observation' is one of the five (or six/seven, dependent upon who you follow in that regard ) steps in the empirical scientific method. You can perform a far better example of this empirical scientific method by following all the steps, but the observance of your arm cannot be simply dismissed as unscientific.

Further, falsifiability is basically a sham, brought on to lend credence to evolution in general, but macro-evolution specifically, and is taught as fact in schools and universities. Poppers falsifiability principle is a philosophical viewpoint, not inductive evidence; therefore it is not scientific, but rather hypothetical in nature. It is thrown into the conversation by relativists to water down science, and it is easily refuted. In fact, it can be refuted by your own example:

Question – Does Gilbo have a right arm?
Answer – Gilbo observed his right arm, touched his right arm, measured the length of his right arm, and used the hand of his right arm to retrieve several items from the lab table. Gilbo performed these experiments exactly ten times to verify each result (induction). He then had two of his colleagues perform the exact same steps of the empirical scientific method on his right arm.

Conclusion: Gilbo absolutely has a right arm, based upon verified experimentation of the empirical scientific method. This is, in fact a "scientific truth".


Very true, perhaps I used the wrong terminology. It still doesn't change the point that when there is the potential for falsification you cannot claim X as a truth.


I believe I said somewhere before, (this topic has been touched in a few threads), in science we can arrive at "relative truths" in things that are "true" relative to the conditions that we experimentally tested them to be "true" at. Such a thing is not an absolute truth.


I'm not the one claiming science as absolute, in fact we are taught at uni that it isn't hence by definition evolution is defying the basic principles of science we are taught in first year.... I have mentioned this to people, but no-one really cares :(




What exactly do you guys think, I hear vastly different opinions on this issue so it would be nice to hear what others have to say and what common ground we can establish.

#19 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 March 2012 - 06:21 AM



Actually, that would be incorrect Gilbo. If you look at your right arm, you are observing it; therefore that is indeed a "scientific endeavor", as 'observation' is one of the five (or six/seven, dependent upon who you follow in that regard ) steps in the empirical scientific method. You can perform a far better example of this empirical scientific method by following all the steps, but the observance of your arm cannot be simply dismissed as unscientific.

Further, falsifiability is basically a sham, brought on to lend credence to evolution in general, but macro-evolution specifically, and is taught as fact in schools and universities. Poppers falsifiability principle is a philosophical viewpoint, not inductive evidence; therefore it is not scientific, but rather hypothetical in nature. It is thrown into the conversation by relativists to water down science, and it is easily refuted. In fact, it can be refuted by your own example:

Question – Does Gilbo have a right arm?
Answer – Gilbo observed his right arm, touched his right arm, measured the length of his right arm, and used the hand of his right arm to retrieve several items from the lab table. Gilbo performed these experiments exactly ten times to verify each result (induction). He then had two of his colleagues perform the exact same steps of the empirical scientific method on his right arm.

Conclusion: Gilbo absolutely has a right arm, based upon verified experimentation of the empirical scientific method. This is, in fact a "scientific truth".



Very true, perhaps I used the wrong terminology. It still doesn't change the point that when there is the potential for falsification you cannot claim X as a truth.



Again, the so-called “falsifiability principle” only works as a hypothesis. Once any hypothesis is validated (in fact and truth),it is no longer falsifiable; regardless of whether or not one considers it absolute or relative. ANYTHING can be considered “potentially” falsifiable (as potentially means nothing more than probability), but as I said, validation renders said “potential’ moot, because once validation through induction via the empirical scientific method, I can indeed claim “X as a truth”!


I believe I said somewhere before, (this topic has been touched in a few threads), in science we can arrive at "relative truths" in things that are "true" relative to the conditions that we experimentally tested them to be "true" at. Such a thing is not an absolute truth.



Things can be relatively true AND absolutely true at the same time.

For example: It is currently 19 degrees outside of my house as I type this. This is an absolute truth! But I doubt the same is the case where you are in Australia right now. This means that, the temperature where I am, although relative to my local, is still absolute!

The problem with relativistic truth is that “Relativists” misconstrue (intentionally, or from ignorance) what relativism means, in order to make it fit their relativistic world-view (this is known as conversion by definition)! They (the relativists) carry it to an extreme! They then teach this relativism as an “absolute truth” in the university! But the claim itself is self-stultifying! Meaning that the claim cannot support the weight of its own premise!

For example: when you make the claim “Such a thing is not an absolute truth”, you are making an “ABSOLUTE” claim and I can refute it by simply asking “are you absolutely sure”, thusly exposing the fallacious nature of your statement.

WHY?
Because, if you say “Yes, I am absolutely sure”, you “ABSOLUTELY” destroy your own statement.

But if you say no, then you are admitting that your “ABSOLUTE” statement is incorrect.


I'm not the one claiming science as absolute, in fact we are taught at uni that it isn't hence by definition evolution is defying the basic principles of science we are taught in first year.... I have mentioned this to people, but no-one really cares


Once again, you are being taught that evolution is TRUE, and you are being taught this by EVOLUTIONISTS! Of course they are going to teach you their “Version” of what truth is. But, if you apply common sense to their words, it’s not hard to see the fallacious nature of what they teach. Its indoctrination and it’s an indoctrination that YOU are paying them to teach you! How cool is that? For them anyway…

I’ll claim that science is absolute! And I have absolutely no problem with that claim, because I’m not bringing an agenda into the conversation. I will not change the meaning of the empirical scientific method in order to make it fit my world-view; I’ll simply let science be science!

So what do we know about the empirical scientific method? We know for a fact that it is an endeavor of logical steps to validate, or invalidate hypotheses, models, and theories, to see what works (truth), and what doesn’t work (falsified hypotheses, models, and theories). Facts are validated (proven truth) concerning that which we were experimenting on, and once proven true, are NOT falsifiable (See my example of your arm above).




What exactly do you guys think, I hear vastly different opinions on this issue so it would be nice to hear what others have to say and what common ground we can establish.



I think that the most accurate common ground we can achieve is to agree with truth, and not allow world-views to twist truths. It’s not hard if we are honest with ourselves.

#20 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5720 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 March 2012 - 08:39 AM

1. Again, the so-called "falsifiability principle" only works as a hypothesis. Once any hypothesis is validated (in fact and truth),it is no longer falsifiable; regardless of whether or not one considers it absolute or relative. ANYTHING can be considered "potentially" falsifiable (as potentially means nothing more than probability), but as I said, validation renders said "potential' moot, because once validation through induction via the empirical scientific method, I can indeed claim "X as a truth"!



2. Things can be relatively true AND absolutely true at the same time.

For example: It is currently 19 degrees outside of my house as I type this. This is an absolute truth! But I doubt the same is the case where you are in Australia right now. This means that, the temperature where I am, although relative to my local, is still absolute!

3. The problem with relativistic truth is that "Relativists" misconstrue (intentionally, or from ignorance) what relativism means, in order to make it fit their relativistic world-view (this is known as conversion by definition)! They (the relativists) carry it to an extreme! They then teach this relativism as an "absolute truth" in the university! But the claim itself is self-stultifying! Meaning that the claim cannot support the weight of its own premise!

4. For example: when you make the claim "Such a thing is not an absolute truth", you are making an "ABSOLUTE" claim and I can refute it by simply asking "are you absolutely sure", thusly exposing the fallacious nature of your statement.

5. WHY?
Because, if you say "Yes, I am absolutely sure", you "ABSOLUTELY" destroy your own statement.

But if you say no, then you are admitting that your "ABSOLUTE" statement is incorrect.


6. Once again, you are being taught that evolution is TRUE, and you are being taught this by EVOLUTIONISTS! Of course they are going to teach you their "Version" of what truth is. But, if you apply common sense to their words, it's not hard to see the fallacious nature of what they teach.

7. Its indoctrination and it's an indoctrination that YOU are paying them to teach you! How cool is that? For them anyway…

8. I'll claim that science is absolute! And I have absolutely no problem with that claim, because I'm not bringing an agenda into the conversation. I will not change the meaning of the empirical scientific method in order to make it fit my world-view; I'll simply let science be science!

9. So what do we know about the empirical scientific method? We know for a fact that it is an endeavor of logical steps to validate, or invalidate hypotheses, models, and theories, to see what works (truth), and what doesn't work (falsified hypotheses, models, and theories). Facts are validated (proven truth) concerning that which we were experimenting on, and once proven true, are NOT falsifiable (See my example of your arm above).





10. I think that the most accurate common ground we can achieve is to agree with truth, and not allow world-views to twist truths. It's not hard if we are honest with ourselves.



1. If that is how you wish to see it I can't argue. Granted there are many who would feel that something that is "proven" by science thus is claimed "truth". However those are not my words, nor are they my views on this issue.

2. If you are claiming there is temperature outside as an absolute then I agree with you. If you claim that it is 19 degrees outside your house then that is relative since it is relative to your position (the claim of at your house means it isn't absolutely true for the rest of the world), as you demonstrated. Its very hard for me to explain what I am getting at.

3. I have no idea of the concept of relativism, (I am very new to the philosophy of science, as you no doubt realise). The only thing I am trying to get across is caution. Caution because we have no idea that what we claim, "in the name is science" is absolutely true. Newtonian Laws of physics breakdown in the nano-world of particles hence those laws are not absolute since they do not apply to that sphere of influence, rather they are relative to the spheres of influence that they do apply.... Luckily this development continued since no-one argues whether Newtonian physics are absolute or not, (there is no agenda with them being called relative rather than absolute).

Hence with evolution, if we claim evolution as an absolute then we would never look for answers that lie outside of its influence. This to me is very unscientific since it cuts out the scope a person can follow the evidence.... (Which is demonstrated by the bias in scientific papers). Furthermore claiming evolution as an absolute will not allow scientists to follow up doubts or test the claims of evolution, since its an "absolute" why should they?

4. If you read my first claim I said there are no absolutes in science... I totally agree that there can be absolutes in life without the need for scientific revelation. Hence I see your claim here as a mistake of what I am attempting to propose.

5. I am absolutely sure because anything in science can be falsified. Lets say I claim X is true due to evidence and testing.... and then tomorrow you find with more testing and research that X is falsified... It is no longer an absolute truth, (it could still be relative due to the nature of the falsification, see Newtonian Physics). This is my entire point.

Hence how can we claim anything in science as absolute when there could be grounds to make it not absolute in the future, in regards to new evidence.

If things in science can be falsified then we must remain vigilant to regard them in that light, we never know what is around the corner and we cannot know everything. So in that light we must remain cautious to not claim we know everything.

6. Yes and as I said it defies what they said about the nature of science. Hence evolution is not truth, but just because die-hard evolutionists maintain faith that it is absolute doesn't mean you should accept it as absolute. (Plus I am sure with the plethora of evidence given on this forum against evolution that you could not maintain that evolution is an absolute just due on these evidences alone ;) )

7. Would you rather I not get my degree and stay in the soul-sucking job I was in before? I went to university for a degree so I can get a better employment and start to thrive in life, rather than feel like I am in a hole and get depressed about life. I do not set the topics I need to complete my degree, I only intend to stick it out, to get my qualifications. My qualifications do not require me to agree with everything I get taught, this is an important distinction.

Yes I see it as indoctrination, that is why I said that I do not agree with their ideas, except on that falsifiability leaves the door open to falsify the "truth" claimed by science.

8. ???? So you are claiming evolution as an absolute? Since evolution is claimed to be scientific. I have no problem with science being a mode of investigation about how the world works, and it is indeed useful in that sense, however I still maintain my words of caution in that we cannot know everything and what we claim to be true may not be so, (it may indeed be true, but then how do we know if it is or not).

9. And I have no objection for that except it is proven "true" in regards to the mode of experimentation used to claim it is true, (thus is relative to those conditions used, see Newtonian Physics).

10. I do agree with truth and there are truths that can be realised outside of science.... Like I am sure a Joe Doe loving his wife is a truth. I just maintain that in science we need to be cautious in the degree of certainty we give such things. Be scientifically skeptical of science, not to the point it clouds our judgement, but skeptical none the less.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users