In science there is no claim to 'truth', just to the presently best
explanation of observed phenomena.
Furthermore, he responded affirmatively to the following questions posed
to him by me in a message dated Sat, 14 Jun 1997 23:22:17 -0400:
...do you really want to make the parameters of
truth so narrow? Is our knowledge really limited to that which we have
observed? Do you really mean to suggest that the only "facts' for which
we are justified in claiming knowledge of are those which are capable of
being observed or experienced by our senses? History doesn't fall into
the parameters of science as you have defined it. Are we to conclude
then that we have no knowledge of historical events, only faith that
certain events occurred?
My question is this - If science is the sole source of our knowledge,
yet it makes no claims to truth, what then is it that we KNOW? Can one
claim to "know" something without making a claim about what is true? Is
it possible to know something that is not true? And how can one claim
that a given hypothesis is the BEST explanation of observed phenomena
without having some preconceived notion of what is true (e.g. the
universe is materialistic)? If I am to say that a given theory is the
best possible explanation for a particular observation, I must have some
idea about what is true in order to conclude that the hypothesis in
question should be adopted in favor of its competitors. If I have no
concept of what is true about the nature of reality or the universe, by
what standards am I justified in claiming that a certain hypothesis is
better than any others?
Regards,
Keith