Lost marbles (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, October 24, 2009, 21:39 (5301 days ago) @ xeno6696

There are two separate discussions going on here: the first is about scientific "truth", and the second about design. I would like to comment on the first.-Matt: You seem to think that science is about finding truth. No. Science is about building a model that creates a 1:1 correspondence with the world. All models are contingent and temporary.-George: I thought "having a 1:1 correspondence with the world" was a synonym for "true".-It's not often that George and I are on the same side, but we are today. This is not an argument about science but about use of language. If the model does not have a 1:1 correspondence with the world, it will not represent an absolute truth. You wrote: "We hope it's a 1:1 correspondence, but only by subsequent empirical testing can we verify it." Verify = to prove that something is true, and if science is not concerned with the truthfulness of its findings, I don't see how it can be called science. It may not be about finding truth (though I hope it is when I step onto a plane, or go to hospital, or look at my friendly neighbourhood nuclear power station), but it's certainly about looking for truth.-All you've done is to take the word "truth" and identify it with Massimo Pigliucci's "absolute truth", but if we do that, we shall never be able to use the word. If my grandson asks me whether it's true that the Earth revolves round the sun, I'm sorry, but I shall reply, "Yes, it's true," and I will not even mentally put the word in inverted commas. I could, I suppose, add that this is the general consensus among scientists, and that we humans can never be sure that current scientific knowledge represents absolute truth, but I see no reason at all why I should not use the word "true" in relation to this piece of scientific information. If pressed, I would say that science "is about" gaining knowledge from study of the physical world, and I don't see how you can separate knowledge from truth, whether it's "useful" or not.-I agree with you, however, that all models, or current "truths" (in inverted commas), are contingent and temporary, and I agree with George that some are more contingent and temporary than others. For instance, I think the vast majority of us would be surprised if we were told that the sun revolved round the Earth. Maybe fewer people would be surprised if some aspects of Darwin's Theory of Evolution were found to be faulty. As you rightly said: "The process of truth and how it relates to science is another process of relativism." But you also wrote: "Accepting that science isn't about truth resolves most of your issues you raised in this post." I'm afraid it would resolve none of the issues. I wrote: "I wonder which of our scientific "truths" [in inverted commas] will still be valid a thousand years from now." Perhaps you would prefer it if I wondered which of our scientific models will still be regarded as "verified" (in inverted commas) a thousand years from now, but what's the difference?