Pim: The knowledge derived from science is in the form of data and
observations
and hypotheses to explain these data. Our knowledge is limited by our
observations and data but there is no claim of truth made in science.
After all one of the basic foundations of science is falsifiability.
OK, first you say that data and observations are part of the knowledge
derived from science and then in the next sentence you seem to be
differentiating between data/observations and knowledge for you say that
our "knowledge is limited BY our observations and data." So what is the
content of the knowledge that does not include data and observations?
The fact that one of the foundations of science is falsifiability does
not preclude the putting forth of truth claims. To say that a
proposition is falsifiable does not mean that it can never be true.
Rather, it means that there are certain conditions which can be
conceived of in which case it would be disproven. This, however, does
not mean that those conditions will ever actually arise. For instance,
it is true that the Twin Towers are located in Manhattan. Such a claim
would be demonstrated as false if after scouring the city, there was no
trace of them.
Keith: I submit that the answer to this question is "no"; any claim to
knowledge entails a belief that that which is claimed to be known is
true.
However, if as you say, truth can never be found in a scientific
environment, how can we say that our knowledge has increased because of
it?
Pim: That's where we disagree. Science does not claim to know the
truth.
Then what does science claim to know?
Pim: Increased observations, data and theories can increase our
knowledge and
understanding of what makes the world around us tick.
But when one claims to know or understand something, isn't he claiming
to know what is true about that something? If I don't know what is true
about something, in what sense can I say that I understand it?
Pim: Can we be sure that we are correct in our understanding of the
world around us ? Nope, although one can make a good attempt and there
are mechanisms in place
that our understanding of the world is not portrayed as the 'truth'.
So, if I understand you correctly, you're not claiming that it is true
that life originated and progressed according to Darwinian evolution?
Keith