Re: truth and science

David Campbell (bivalve@isis.unc.edu)
Fri, 30 May 1997 18:14:37 -0400

John McKiness responded to my post,
>
> I would disagree, science cannot prove any statement or hypothesis true,
> it can verify or reject, it can make predictions, and it can make probability
>statements but it cannot prove any statement true in the same way that God
>Statements are true.
If one accepts the premise that observations are true, then science can
prove trivial statements such as "If I mix these two solutions, they will
form a yellow precipitate", "If I drop this rock on my foot, it will hurt",
etc. The additional assumption that natural laws are universal is required
before general statements could be considered proven true, e.g., "Every
time anyone mixes two solutions with the same composition as these, they
will form a yellow precipitate" or "Every time my foot receives a certain
level of force, it will hurt". The more general the statement, the more
useful it is, but the harder it is to prove (or disprove) exhaustively. In
contrast, God, being omniscient, can make a true statement because He knows
it. His statements are more similar to mathematical truths, being true
because the person making the statement knows enough about the system to
say with certainty.

>
>As far as your statement that "its methods assume that some objective truth
>exists," I would agree if you mean that in order to use the method we must
>assume that natural processes are consistent and predictable.
>
Also, a single external reality must exist in which some statements are
either true or false, observations must truly reflect this reality, and
there must be some reason to prefer observations to unsubstantiated
guesses.

>A relativistic world view can be a problem, if we assume that all observers are
>equally qualified observers and each is capable of equally valid
>>interpretations
>of their observed data. I don't think any rational relativist would make
>that assumption.
A "rational relativist" is being self-contradictory. There's no way to say
that one observer or interpretation is better unless there is some absolute
standard by which they are measured. In practice, "relativism" almost
always sets oneself up as the absolute, hence its popularity. No one is
willing to accept the consequences of everyone else setting themselves up
as absolute, too, and so hypocricy is inevitable.

>As a Christian, I can say all things must relate to God, and He is THE
>OBSERVER and
>THE DATA MAKER, and in the end, His opinion is the only one that counts.
True, and because He has created a universe that does make sense we can
confidently attempt to understand it using scientific methods. Although we
will not know exhaustively, we can assume that, to the extent that our sin
and ignorance do not interfere, we are making closer and closer
approximations of absolute truth.

David Campbell