Jump to content


Photo

What Is Truth Scientifically?


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

#21 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 March 2012 - 02:10 PM


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.


It’s not a matter of how I see it, or how you see it. It’s a matter of what is true, and what is not. AND that we, as people don’t ‘make’ truth; but rather that we observe what is true and what is false.


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.



I understand perfectly what you are getting at. But the fact remains that the temperature outside my house this morning was 19 degrees. And that fact is absolute in its truth, AND it was relative to my location geographically. And, as a fact, I tested this reading using the empirical scientific method, FOUR separate times; therefore it is validated as absolutely true. Therefore it is absolute in its truth, and is absolutely NOT falsifiable. Only hypotheticals (models and theories) that are unproven OR proven false, are falsifiable.


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?



We can absolutely claim as absolutely true, those things (phenomena) that have been validated (proven true). Not those things (phenomena) that have been unproven or disproven. Therefore to make claims for any truth concerning macro-evolution would fall with the parameters of “falsifiable”. Therefor your ‘cautionary’ tone is well advised when dealing with macro-evolution. BUT, claims for falsifiability concerning the scientific test on phenomena such as your right arm, OR the temperature outside my house this morning fail, as these are absolute in their truth.

Now, concerning Newtonian Laws of physics: Are not they absolute in the spheres of influence that they do apply? That is a rhetorical question, as you and I both know the answer is in the affirmative. The problem with your reasoning, is that you (not you really, but the evolutionists propagandists at the university) is that you are changing the parameters of the test. Can we then discuss where Newton tested “Nano-world” particles using the empirical scientific method?

We can discuss that further is you wish, but I am hoping you see the irrelevance in that argumentation. Either way, it’ll be fine.



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.



And I totally disagree with your assertion that “there are no absolutes in science”. In fact, I provided two examples that refute that very statement. The fact that there are “absolutes in life” itself proves there “are absolutes in science”. I am not mistaking what you are attempting to propose, I am saying that what you are saying is incorrect. And, I am harboring no malice toward you in my assertions; I am simply providing logic and science to show that the falsifiability principle is itself false.


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.



What you are failing to realize here is that you are making an “absolute” statement about how something cannot be “absolute” (this totally negates your entire statement)! Further, if you set stringent standards and parameters in your application of the empirical scientific method (as you should), and verified the findings as true, but the following it didn’t, then something changed within those standards and parameters! Therefore you didn’t falsify your previous findings, you have a complete new set of findings.

Which begs the question about your assertion: What, within Newtonian Laws, did you falsify? Or are you settings NEW standards and parameters with which you are judging the truth of those Laws?


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)



No… We cannot accept macro-evolution as truth (let alone absolute truth) due to the fact that NONE of it has been validated via the empirical scientific method. That is the standard…


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.



Absolutely not! And I would wonder where you could contrive such an idea? What I am imparting upon you is the skill of critical thinking when dealing with the fallaciousness of the falsifiability principle.

You need to finish your degree as a rational thinking person, and not as a lemming following along in the fallacious footsteps of evolutionary academia.


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).



No one said “we can know everything”. In fact, the Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 13:12 -
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”

We will not even come close to knowing everything in this world; that will have to await the next. But those things we know as truth, we do know “absolutely”! Yes, we SHOULD be cautious. Not so much concerning those things that we KNOW to be true (Truth – That which corresponds with reality), but rather those things that we know NOT to be true, and those things we don’t know, yet others tell us are true.


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).




Once again, you use the relativist’s argument for falsifiability. Which begs the question: What have you proven to be false concerning Newtonian Law? Or are you simply tweaking the parameters?


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.



And there are absolute truths that can be validated WITHIN the empirical scientific method. Just as there are non-truths that were proven incorrect (invalidated) WITHIN the empirical scientific method. Be logically AND scientifically skeptical about EVERYTHING that is not validated as true. You don’t have to be cautious about whether or not an open flame with burn your exposed skin when held too closely, you know that as an absolute truth! But you can absolutely be cautious concerning whether or not an “unproven” pare of protective gloves will keep your hand from being burnt (until you verify via the empirical scientific method the capabilities of said gloves).

#22 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:34 AM

It’s not a matter of how I see it, or how you see it. It’s a matter of what is true, and what is not. AND that we, as people don’t ‘make’ truth; but rather that we observe what is true and what is false.



I understand perfectly what you are getting at. But the fact remains that the temperature outside my house this morning was 19 degrees. And that fact is absolute in its truth, AND it was relative to my location geographically. And, as a fact, I tested this reading using the empirical scientific method, FOUR separate times; therefore it is validated as absolutely true. Therefore it is absolute in its truth, and is absolutely NOT falsifiable. Only hypotheticals (models and theories) that are unproven OR proven false, are falsifiable.



We can absolutely claim as absolutely true, those things (phenomena) that have been validated (proven true). Not those things (phenomena) that have been unproven or disproven. Therefore to make claims for any truth concerning macro-evolution would fall with the parameters of “falsifiable”. Therefor your ‘cautionary’ tone is well advised when dealing with macro-evolution. BUT, claims for falsifiability concerning the scientific test on phenomena such as your right arm, OR the temperature outside my house this morning fail, as these are absolute in their truth.

Now, concerning Newtonian Laws of physics: Are not they absolute in the spheres of influence that they do apply? That is a rhetorical question, as you and I both know the answer is in the affirmative. The problem with your reasoning, is that you (not you really, but the evolutionists propagandists at the university) is that you are changing the parameters of the test. Can we then discuss where Newton tested “Nano-world” particles using the empirical scientific method?

We can discuss that further is you wish, but I am hoping you see the irrelevance in that argumentation. Either way, it’ll be fine.




And I totally disagree with your assertion that “there are no absolutes in science”. In fact, I provided two examples that refute that very statement. The fact that there are “absolutes in life” itself proves there “are absolutes in science”. I am not mistaking what you are attempting to propose, I am saying that what you are saying is incorrect. And, I am harboring no malice toward you in my assertions; I am simply providing logic and science to show that the falsifiability principle is itself false.



What you are failing to realize here is that you are making an “absolute” statement about how something cannot be “absolute” (this totally negates your entire statement)! Further, if you set stringent standards and parameters in your application of the empirical scientific method (as you should), and verified the findings as true, but the following it didn’t, then something changed within those standards and parameters! Therefore you didn’t falsify your previous findings, you have a complete new set of findings.

Which begs the question about your assertion: What, within Newtonian Laws, did you falsify? Or are you settings NEW standards and parameters with which you are judging the truth of those Laws?



No… We cannot accept macro-evolution as truth (let alone absolute truth) due to the fact that NONE of it has been validated via the empirical scientific method. That is the standard…



Absolutely not! And I would wonder where you could contrive such an idea? What I am imparting upon you is the skill of critical thinking when dealing with the fallaciousness of the falsifiability principle.

You need to finish your degree as a rational thinking person, and not as a lemming following along in the fallacious footsteps of evolutionary academia.



No one said “we can know everything”. In fact, the Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 13:12 -
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”

We will not even come close to knowing everything in this world; that will have to await the next. But those things we know as truth, we do know “absolutely”! Yes, we SHOULD be cautious. Not so much concerning those things that we KNOW to be true (Truth – That which corresponds with reality), but rather those things that we know NOT to be true, and those things we don’t know, yet others tell us are true.




Once again, you use the relativist’s argument for falsifiability. Which begs the question: What have you proven to be false concerning Newtonian Law? Or are you simply tweaking the parameters?



And there are absolute truths that can be validated WITHIN the empirical scientific method. Just as there are non-truths that were proven incorrect (invalidated) WITHIN the empirical scientific method. Be logically AND scientifically skeptical about EVERYTHING that is not validated as true. You don’t have to be cautious about whether or not an open flame with burn your exposed skin when held too closely, you know that as an absolute truth! But you can absolutely be cautious concerning whether or not an “unproven” pare of protective gloves will keep your hand from being burnt (until you verify via the empirical scientific method the capabilities of said gloves).



I will concede that my first claim of " there are no absolutes in science" was a rash choice of words.

However I do stand by my later, (more evolved :P ) claims that we must be cautious in our understanding in that we may not know everything. This also leads to allow new research the "time of day" since something we previously thought true may not be so. This however is not allowed by the evolutionist dogma since they refuse to not consider evidence that flies in the face of their theory. Such thinking truly is unscientific and doesn't progress learning. I am glad you agree with this revised stance I have taken :)

No I do not wish to be a lemming nor do I wish to be a pawn. Hence why I am critical of evolution on the basis of science itself, and I thank you for enlightening me to this other false doctrine of secular science :D

#23 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 March 2012 - 10:27 AM

If you EVER hear ANYONE claiming to know EVERYTHING, you can easily pull their entire argument apart with one question… Having said that, if you EVER hear ANYONE at this forum claiming to know EVERYTHING, please let us know so that we can make that correction straight-away!

Further, if you can provide where I (at any time) claimed that I knew everything, please point it out! I would be more than happy to apologize for such a silly notion!

On the same hand, if you were to claim that we cannot know ANYTHING for sure; Or that we cannot know truth; Or that we cannot know truth absolutely; it would be relatively easy to totally destroy your argument with one question as well.

The bottom line is this:

1- We CAN know TRUTH
2- We CAN know these truths ABSOLUTELY
3- Those truths ARE NOT falsifiable

Conclusion: Knowing some truth absolutely, is NOT analogous with knowing everything. This is known as conversion by definition! Further, it was never claimed by anyone here, therefore it is a non sequitur as well. The fact that we can know some truths ABSOLUTELY, totally destroys the falsifiability doctrine.

#24 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 13 March 2012 - 03:51 PM

If you EVER hear ANYONE claiming to know EVERYTHING, you can easily pull their entire argument apart with one question… Having said that, if you EVER hear ANYONE at this forum claiming to know EVERYTHING, please let us know so that we can make that correction straight-away!

Further, if you can provide where I (at any time) claimed that I knew everything, please point it out! I would be more than happy to apologize for such a silly notion!

On the same hand, if you were to claim that we cannot know ANYTHING for sure; Or that we cannot know truth; Or that we cannot know truth absolutely; it would be relatively easy to totally destroy your argument with one question as well.

The bottom line is this:

1- We CAN know TRUTH
2- We CAN know these truths ABSOLUTELY
3- Those truths ARE NOT falsifiable

Conclusion: Knowing some truth absolutely, is NOT analogous with knowing everything. This is known as conversion by definition! Further, it was never claimed by anyone here, therefore it is a non sequitur as well. The fact that we can know some truths ABSOLUTELY, totally destroys the falsifiability doctrine.


That makes sense; if something is absolutely true, then it is unfalsifiable. This text is black on a white background. That statement would only be falsified if the truth changed (say by a mod).

#25 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 March 2012 - 04:09 PM


That makes sense; if something is absolutely true, then it is unfalsifiable.


Therefor your statement is unfalsifiable




This text is black on a white background. That statement would only be falsified if the truth changed (say by a mod).



HEY!!! :argue:

:)

#26 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 14 March 2012 - 07:19 AM

I agree with JayShel and with some/most of Ron's explanations. Obviously we can be certain of things. Direct observations are absolute truths (hence they are called facts). The principle of falsification is not applicable because it is not a hypothetical statement as Ron already explained, it cannot be falsified. Observations need to be specific about the conditions though. Observations can change because conditions change (for instance the black on white background example, it is valid now so one condition to add to the fact could be time. The background being white at 15:08, 14/03/2012 is an absolute truth that you do not need to prove).

After that, you will take steps into the world of probability and no longer absolute truth. Hypothesis and theories rely on falsification. One example could be: the background is always white, which is a hypothesis and could be the truth but it can also be falsified by changing the background color.

With each step (new information related to the hypothesis that is discovered reinforcing it) the probability of it being true will increase. So you will get gradations from scientific hypothesis to scientific theory to scientific fact. However none of them are absolute truths.

That's my take on it in a nutshell. Laws of gravity will be considered scientific facts (thus scientific truths) but they aren't necessarily absolute truths while the observation of an appel falling downwards from a tree is.

#27 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 March 2012 - 07:46 AM

Whenever you change the parameters of any experiment, you change the experiment. This does not, in any way, affect the “absoluteness” of truth of a previously validated experiment. Something that is verified as “absolute” in its truth remains just that.

#28 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 14 March 2012 - 08:16 AM

The absoluteness of the truth doesn't change indeed but the usefulness does if you do not write down the conditions/parameters of the experiment. It is now 12 degrees outside is an absolute truth but that truth is useless if you do not know where and when the temperature was measured. In fact if you do not specify it, and make the generalization that 'it is 12 degrees outside' it will probably be contradicted by people in different parts of the world.

It is sometimes very hard to learn all of the parameters that influence the experiment so a lot of observations from the past have limited usefulness even though they are facts/truths.

#29 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 March 2012 - 10:03 AM

If I do not know where the temperature was measured, I was not involved in the empirical scientific method.

If I did not specify where the temperature was measured, I was not involved in the empirical scientific method.

"Generalizations" are neither "facts", nor are they "validated" as being "True" OR "Absolutely True".

If I didn’t verify the information by validating it with the empirical scientific method, the outcome was neither proven true, nor was it absolute; therefore the point is moot because it is a non sequitur within the context of the conversation.

#30 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 14 March 2012 - 02:03 PM

If I do not know where the temperature was measured, I was not involved in the empirical scientific method.

If I did not specify where the temperature was measured, I was not involved in the empirical scientific method.

"Generalizations" are neither "facts", nor are they "validated" as being "True" OR "Absolutely True".

If I didn’t verify the information by validating it with the empirical scientific method, the outcome was neither proven true, nor was it absolute; therefore the point is moot because it is a non sequitur within the context of the conversation.


I'm sorry. My reply was a bit hasty. Of course you are right when you say that if you do not personally know the initial conditions (parameters) that you can hardly call your experiment scientific. If you do not write them down, then equally, your experiment cannot be validated. But your reply got me thinking about what if you do not know what all the parameters are that can influence your observation, and thus do not write them on your report of the experiment. The reply is more or less a mix of my train of thought and a reply on your post which wasn't clear at all.

I do agree with everything you said but what are your thoughts about unknown parameters? Do they change the absoluteness of truth on previous experiments?

#31 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 March 2012 - 04:12 PM

I agree with JayShel and with some/most of Ron's explanations. Obviously we can be certain of things. Direct observations are absolute truths (hence they are called facts).


That only works if "one conclusion" can be obtained from the observation. If more than one answered can be obtained from the observation then what you have are possibilities not fact or facts. A direct observable truth leaves only one possibility and therefore has not even one chance in changing.

Example:
Origins of the universe. Big Bang is accepted as the only possibility or conclusion even when the laws of physics don;t support it. The other possibility is creation. Which means Bib Bang is not a fact nor is anywhere near it.

Another example is the geologic column and the fossil record. The column and the fossil record is supposed to be a accurate recording of time, right? Yet there are many problems well over looked.

1) An observable mechanism cannot be provided that takes time to "sort layers".
2) Living fossils are never recorded surviving more than one layer yet are alive today.
3) If the flood were the mechanism we would expect:

a. an observable mechanism were water can sort layers. Which we do have. Water will sort sediments.
b. And that because the burying process would have happened so quickly underwater,. every aquatic life would have been buried in it's living habitat. Which if you look at the fossil record you will see that aquatic life was buried according to their habitat. Bottom dwellers first. Mid-dwellers second. Top-dwellers third, There is no known natural mechanism that takes time that would have sorted the fossils this way.

So two possibilities makes the claim that the column and the fossils solely support evolution and the time-line require not a fact.

#32 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 March 2012 - 05:05 AM




If I do not know where the temperature was measured, I was not involved in the empirical scientific method.

If I did not specify where the temperature was measured, I was not involved in the empirical scientific method.

"Generalizations" are neither "facts", nor are they "validated" as being "True" OR "Absolutely True".

If I didn’t verify the information by validating it with the empirical scientific method, the outcome was neither proven true, nor was it absolute; therefore the point is moot because it is a non sequitur within the context of the conversation.



I'm sorry. My reply was a bit hasty. Of course you are right when you say that if you do not personally know the initial conditions (parameters) that you can hardly call your experiment scientific. If you do not write them down, then equally, your experiment cannot be validated. But your reply got me thinking about what if you do not know what all the parameters are that can influence your observation, and thus do not write them on your report of the experiment. The reply is more or less a mix of my train of thought and a reply on your post which wasn't clear at all.

I do agree with everything you said but what are your thoughts about unknown parameters? Do they change the absoluteness of truth on previous experiments?



Unknown parameters have absolutely NO bearing on the absoluteness of a truth in reality, because "unknown parameters" are "abstract" in nature. For example: My being hot, and your being cold has no bearing on my being hot, or your being cold. It is what it is! Or, if I have one apple, one orange, and one banana, I have three peices of fruit no matter where I am, or where you are! Further, the gravity on Earth is what it is, even if you are on Mars, Jupiter or Pluto!

These are absolute truths that cannot be falsified. Therefore the falsifiability doctrine, as extended into reality, is false.

BUT, as a hypothetical question, it has some relevance in the area of the abstract. Just like your question; your question is an abstract and hypothetical question. But the hypothetical does absolutely NOTHING to detract from an absolute fact in reality. For example: What if I said - What if Custer would have had a Sherman Tank at the Battle of little Big Horn? Now, there are many-many problems with this hypothetical question; but first and formost, the main problem is that it is an abstract hypothetical question that has abolutely NO bearing on the absolute truth of the outcome of that battle.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users