Gene:
I agree with your statement "there is no absolute truth" only because you
have the caveat "in science" along with it. That leaves open the
possibility that there is absolute truth *not* in science. I accept that
science's conclusions are always, in some sense, provisional.
There is very likely an 'absolute truth' although even that statement
could be doubted. The question remains that the 'truth' claimed by science
is not an absolute one, the truth claimed by religion is.
Furthermore the claims of science tend to be backed up by facts and
observations, the claims of truth of religion are totally by faith.
Gene: (You recognize that the statement "There is no absolute truth" has to
assume the absolute truthfulness of that statement and so refutes itself.)
I disagree. That the statement might not be absolutely truthful does not
mean that it refuted itself.
Pim:
> It would be a different science from what we are used to but if this is
> the case then science stops at observations, no theory or hypotheses. Not
> very useful but the best description of our reality.
Gene:
The rules of the scientific method depend on reason. If you don't have a
functional reason which can be used to reach and apprehend truth then you
shouldn't trust the scientific method (which you seem to do, and I know I
do) to lead you to anything other than nonsense.
Perhaps it is nonsense, science does not claim to have the truth to the
matter, only the best description of the truth given our limited
observations and reasoning. Does this mean that one cannot trust the
scientific method ? Upto know it has not failed us, but if it will then we
have to adapt our methods.
Pim:
> Nor does the scientific method claim that observability is all that
> matters, just that if it cannot be observed it cannot make any statements
> about it.
Gene: I think you might anger many mathematicians with that statement.
Many of
the postulates of mathematics, which have been rather helpful in the
advancement of science, depend upon unobservable things which can only be
"proved" in the mind.
If they can be proven in the mind they are observable.
Gene: In fact most of mathematics operates at an unobservable level. The
insights weren't gained from nature either. No one has ever observed a
fully perfect circle, yet we still have the idea of a perfect circle and
can define what a perfect circle would be like (all points equidistant
from a given point) even though we will never see one. How do you
incorporate this into your philosophy?
We disagree on the observability of a science depending on visual clues.
Pim:
> > Because as far as I am concerned science addresses the best presently
> > known observations with the best presently known hypotheses and
theories.
> > Does this mean that science is perfect or infallible ? On the contrary,
> > but this does not mean that the scientific method is self destructive.
Gene: Again, I have never argued that science is infallible. I argue
that with the limits you *seem* to be placing on science, the scientific
method could never have arisen because your epistemology, your theory of
knowledge, cannot support it. Observations alone cannot lead to the
development of a way to assess the truth of observations. There is a very
easy way to refute this argument--show that you *can* use only
observations to develop the scientific method. I'd be happy to support
you in your effort, but you need to start because I can't see how it will
work. Since you seem to be able to see how this can arise you *must* be
able to develop a proper framework for the scientific method by
observation alone.
I still don't understand your argument. What limits am I placing on
science ?
Pim:
> You claim
> that under my explanation of science, science self destroys because its
> foundations do not follow the scientific method and therefor it cannot be
> used to show the suitability of observations. But science does not claim
> that our observations are the absolute truth or that there is not
> something which can exist outside our perception or observability. Since
> it cannot be observed however it states that it cannot address these
> issues.
Gene:
You seem to be saying that science cannot address the suitability of the
scientific method. Then we agree. But if science cannot address the
suitability of the scientific method, why do you think science can yield
any truth (and not absolute truth, just provisional truth) about the
world.
I believe that science can describe as well as given the observations and
our understanding the world around us. If findings in the world disagree
with science, science has to adapt. Science however has been quite
succesful over the years to do this. The suitability issue is only
important if one lays claims to absolute truth. Nor does science deny the
possibility that there is more than what can be observed or reasoned.
Pim:
> Then we disagree about the definition of observation. I am sure that one
> can attest to such a relationship, millions do but it is based on faith
> not based on fact.
Gene:
I don't think we disagree as much as you think. You can never observe the
love someone has for you, but you still know that you are loved.
We disagree. We define love by certain actions and words. This is why we
assume we are loved. Or we might even presume that we are loved (and find
out later that we are wrong <g>). But is it knowledge ? I would disagree.
Gene: This is knowledge.
This is an assumption, a personal belief, a faith. If it is based on
something observable then we can consider it knowledge.
Gene: A perfect circle cannot be observed, but one can still define
it.
So it can be observed.
Gene: This is knowledge. There is a process of observation occurring,
albeit a subjective one. I think I would have difficulty convincing
someone with autism of the idea of a perfect circle. I think it might be
difficult to convince sociopaths of the existence of love. That doesn't
mean that those things don't exist.
We donot know if love exists, we identify what we consider certain
characteristics of love and consider it evidence of love. Is this
knowledge ? I would disagree that the existance of love is knowledge. It
is a belief in a word that describes feelings and actions.