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.
Keithp: 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?
but is based on data and observations: theory, hypotheses, assumptions etc.
All the things we learned from our observations.
Keithp: 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.
Putting forth truth claims assumes that one can prove that it is. However
while science spends a lot of time and effort on finding supporting (and
contradicting) data it cannot prove a claim, it can merely support it.
Keithp: Rather, it means that there are certain conditions which can be
conceived of in which case it would be disproven. This, however, does
If it is disproven it was not a truth. Or are we working with different
definitions of truth ?
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.
Pim: That's where we disagree. Science does not claim to know the
truth.
Keithp: Then what does science claim to know?
Science describes observations, makes theories and hypothesis but does not
claim to know the truth.
Pim: Increased observations, data and theories can increase our
knowledge and
understanding of what makes the world around us tick.
Keithp: 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?
That's science for you. The best claim it can make is that given our
present day understanding and data we understand a certain phenomenon as
well as we can but this does not mean that it claims the truth. The
understanding of something is founded on observations and theories.
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'.
Keithp: So, if I understand you correctly, you're not claiming that it is
true
that life originated and progressed according to Darwinian evolution?
Indeed, from a scientific point of view one can make a good case but to
claim that it is the truth, i.e. that we know that it is the real
mechanism, is something science cannot conclude. It can claim that it is
the best theory available to describe our observations and understanding
but to claim that it is the truth ?
Even claims that evolution is a fact, does not preclude it from being
disproven or amended.
No 100 % certainty exists in science.