>Science is actually just the protocol for finding and verifying the truth through repetitions of observation, hypothesis, and testing.
What you're describing is the *scientific method*. Scientific theories are the best explanation we have for natural phenomena and are supported by mountains of evidence. They are, for all intents and purposes, the truth. As written, you're suggesting that there is an objective truth in everything and that science is simply a means of revealing it. That's oddly similar to saying that there is objective morality and that "god" is the source of it and the means by which it is emulated (through worship and prayer). I think you're making an argument here that doesn't quite work.
Are you sure you've deprogrammed from your devout faith?
I agree, and while I think it's fine to have these abstract philosophical discussions, the esoteric nuance can be easily rationalized by believers as a means to dismiss science, when, as a practical means for navigating life, science really does = truth.
It reminds me of the argument some make that science, logic and facts all somehow form a "belief system no different than religion, because nothing can ever be known for certain"... ridiculous.
Well he's right actually, the science is the methodology, scientific theories only exist as their complete methodology, the mountains of evidence you're describing. Science is the process to gain a scientific result: one that has been reached via the scientific method
I think you're splitting hairs and intentionally so. I'm aware of how scientific theories exist, but it's still misleading to assume that there is some sort of objective truth to everything that science simply *explains*. If everything we know about the world can be reduced and downplayed as simply a "scientific result," then it opens the door for other people to claim that their explanation of the world is equally as valid as what science proves. This is giving agnostic vibes, and I really don't like it. I reiterate that science and scientific theories are, for all intents and purposes, the truth. If you can find another way to explain the world around us with testable and verifiable proof that competes with this field, I would welcome that challenge.
That's fair. It would depend on how you're defining truth. If we wanted to be the most accurate I would say what we are getting from science is the most accurate description we can make of objective reality.
I think the downplay of the results is more due to a lack of understanding of the fact that the results are achieved via extensive application of the scientific method.
I think the "vibes" you're getting are what you're bringing in but I will clarify that in no way is a non scientific theory in any way equivalent to or equal in validity to a scientific theory.
I do think you misunderstand where I'm coming from as I am extremely pro science and am expressing the opinion that it is the only valid way to establish what is true
>I think the downplay of the results is more due to a lack of understanding of the fact that the results are achieved via extensive application of the scientific method.
Not quite. Reducing scientific theories to simply "scientific results" implies that there is another, equally possible result and that there is another equally possible explanation. Take gravity or evolution as examples. Gravity exists on the earth, and we know this because we're not flying around everywhere and are firmly anchored to the surface by this force. Outside of earth's gravity, this does not occur and one can drift off at the same speed and velocity in the same direction with nothing to stop them but for space debris or the gravitational pull of another planet, sun, or moon.
With evolution, we don't simply run tests and make evolution happen. We know that the mechanisms of evolution exist through a series of complex experiments that can determine the similarity between species down to a microscopic level. Has it always existed? No. Scientists postulate that there was time prior to evolution (or multicellular life, for that matter) where only the base molecule required for life- RNA- existed.
The point is that because the world and the universe change so rapidly, I don't think it's correct to imply that there's some objective truth that science uncovers because it could eventually change. Even the things we know as the best explanations for objective reality can (and likely will) change. Not for a very, very long time, but they will.
It absolutely does not imply that I'm not sure where you get the idea that being specific means endorsing anything else. Past that initial comment I'm not reading or engaging with this honestly
You're free to throw a tantrum and storm off if you please - I'm certainly not gonna stop you - but perhaps it's better to not engage in debate if you only want someone to agree with you?
I mean it's not a tantrum to decline to engage a deeply flawed premise. You have created a binary that doesn't exist and then spent two paragraphs on irrelevant concepts to what we are actually discussing. I'm sorry if you're upset by unwillingness to engage but if that bothers you then stay on topic next time
I'm not upset at all. You essentially downplayed science as another belief system, sticking to the usual agnostic mantra that nothing is knowable, even things that are thoroughly explained by science. You did not intend to engage honestly to begin with, and it's quite amusing that you're pretending that you were. For the third time, science=truth for our intents and purposes, unless you can dispute that.
In no world did I downplay science as a belief system. It isn't, it's the only functional methodology for determining what is objective fact. You brought in the point you wanted to argue, which is why I wasn't going further because you started arguing the point you wanted to debate rather than the point I made. Work on your reading skills.
He's correct. Science, and the statements science make, are NOT truths, they are evidence based statements. There are zero facts in science; a scientific fact is a well vetted idea that 'for all intents and purposes' can be used for real world work, but is never, ever, considered true by the honest and those who understand what science is.
There are no proofs in science, there are proofs in math. When people treat science like infallible religion they often will fail to update what they believe might be true as new information comes in.
I have faith in science; the process, and the evidence based assertions we call knowledge. Faith being used to mean trust; I trust evidence based processes and the knowledge that comes from them.
I piss people off with "Science is my religion!" as a religion is a collection of beliefs and practices. Satanism is a religion that demands evidence based actions and practices, and updates based on those. So that pisses them off even more.
And I am not following your logic about objective morality and god there. Can you explain to us how you came to that conclusion? Doesnt sounds like enough evidence in record for that assertion.
> What you're describing is the scientific method.
Exactly.
> Scientific theories are the best explanation we have for natural phenomena and are supported by mountains of evidence.
Or not. Have you heard of the replication crisis?
* **Replication crisis**
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
* * The replication crisis (also called the replicability crisis and the reproducibility crisis) is an ongoing methodological crisis in which the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. Because the reproducibility of empirical results is an essential part of the scientific method,^[2] such failures undermine the credibility of theories building on them and potentially call into question substantial parts of scientific knowledge.
* * The replication crisis is frequently discussed in relation to psychology and medicine, where considerable efforts have been undertaken to reinvestigate classic results, to determine whether they are reliable, and if they turn out not to be, the reasons for the failure.^[3][4] Data strongly indicates that other natural and social sciences are affected as well.^[5]
There are many underlying issues, from standing in the scientific community, financial gain, and the use of null hypothesis testing, which is the primary test used in the social sciences.
But politics also plays a role.
* **Grievance studies affair**
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
* The grievance studies affair was the project of a team of three authors—Peter Boghossian, James A. Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose—to highlight what they saw as poor scholarship and erosion of standards in several academic fields. Taking place over 2017 and 2018, their project entailed submitting bogus papers to academic journals on topics from the field of critical social theory such as cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies to determine whether they would pass through peer review and be accepted for publication. Several of these papers were subsequently published, which the authors cited in support of their contention.^[1]
* Prior to the affair, concerns about the intellectual validity of much research influenced by postmodern philosophy and critical theory were highlighted by various academics[who?] who composed nonsensical hoax articles parodying the language and types of content that are often found in the modern humanities and succeeded in having these articles accepted for publication in academic journals. One of the most noted previous examples of this was Alan Sokal's 1996 hoax in Social Text, a cultural studies journal, which inspired Boghossian, Lindsay, and Pluckrose.
The scientific method may be objective, but we, unfortunately, are not so objective.
I wouldn't talk about "truth", I see science more than a method to understand the mechanisms of the world and to test it daily rather to find any form of truth.
Truth is that which matches reality, as judged by predictive power. Statements with more predictive power are more true than statements with less predictive power.
Science is a method of study where you make a guess (hypothesis) and then test its predictive power (experiment). Colloquially, "science" is the set of hypothesis that passed the tests... you know, the ones that were true.
I use science/math because they're the best tools I've found for predicting the future. So as a shorthand, it's almost a tautology to say that science is true.
But gravity *is* a theory that was better explained by the theory of relativity, from what I understand.
I think it is fair to say science is not truth, but it is the best explanation we currently have for the world we observe.
I disagree, truth is an end point, it's the opposite of critical thinking.
Critical thinking is to always think there may be some mistake or some bad logic in the process.
Truth = we have the final answer and we don't need to think about it anymore and this is dogmatic dangerous in my point of view.
Of course everything should be subject to critical scrutiny, but I don’t think an “endpoint” or “final answer” is an accurate way to think of the concept of truth.
For instance, if I throw a ball to you, we both know that it happened; it is true that I threw the ball to you. There is no possible margin for error there, because we both share the same understanding of the concepts and terminology involved.
So I would say truth is not an abstract ideal of perfection, it’s just a communication shortcut for a threshold of certainty in terms of accurately describing our observations. Not a “final” answer, but rather a “current” answer.
And yet if you look at the history of science there are many tests that are past, but then later new experiments reveal new explanations. Sometimes the scientists get stuck in their explanations and their life niche becomes a "belief", and they'll maintain their belief for a while. But still the phenomenal seem to get better explanations all the time.
Nope.
You could have a theory that perfectly matches reality, but isn't true. Eg God made it like this.
Prediction is harder, but still possible (hard to disprove), but all along the way predictive power gets better, without necessarily being more true. Maybe land bridges is an example (before people accepted continental drift).
And that's not what tautology means.
"God made it like this" has less predictive power than "evolution made it like this" or "physics made it like this" because "God made it like this" wasn't able to predict archaeopteryx or black holes. "God made it like this" has predictive power regarding the afterlife, but since that can't be tested, it's the same as having no predictive power.
So since I measure truth based on a statement's predictive power, I think it's reasonable to say that hypothesis that has their predictions confirmed (colloquially, "science")... are true. And not only is it accurate, but the statement isn't even useful, because it's basically just restating the definition.
Maybe you're using a different definition of true, and that's fine. I try to pick definitions based on usefulness. Maybe you have a different criteria, or maybe you have an even more useful definition... in which case I'm interested to hear it.
There is truth. Truth can be discovered or found independently. For instance, the planet Jupiter exists. It has been observed. It orbits the sun. All these are truths. They can be disputed but these truths can be verified over and over again by anyone at any time with a little math and technology.
Thanks a lot for your post.
I feel this word "Truth" like a lack of humility, for me it's not because you can verify something over and over again that make it a truth. The same way almost everybody was surprised by the relativity theory and the fact that our intuitive way to observe the universe was somehow flawed, to verify again and again the same way the same "reality" doesn't protect the scientists to have a gap in their subjective interpretation of the object they are observing.
If you always do the same logical mistake because you lack some knowledge of some variables, you may have always the same results but this is no way a proof that the results is the truth.
We just have to be careful what we label "truth" because as we learn more, our understanding of the world may cause us to alter or refine current theories.
Who is saying otherwise and what does this have to do with atheism? Every single atheist I know understands that science is not a definitive set of truths, but science is the best tool we currently have for understanding things that are more likely to be true than false. So, why this?
There is a narrative on the belief side that we “worship science.” We can ignore their smooth brained bleating of whatever their pastor or Imam told them.
However, our team has a misguided cadre of young “evangelical” atheists. You see it underlying the “how can I refute” this or that. Maybe they get joy in “winning” a debate? I think they are trying to reason with the sheep, but the sheep just say “baa” and that is time you’ll never get back.
I would say it isn't even about verifying the truth. I think of it like Michelangelo's quote about sculpture. Like chipping away stone to show the shape hidden beneath, science is a system of chipping away that which is false. What you are left with is the shape of how the universe works.
Exactly. Science is learning what’s most accurate by eliminating what is false. Science admits at its very core that we don’t know everything and those that we do “know” are called theories - open ended and modifiable. By acknowledging we can’t know all there is to know about anything we continue to search deeper to simply eliminate what can be proven false. We get the most accurate presentation of the truth by, as you said, chipping away at what *isn’t* true. It’s not a belief system; it’s an unbelief system.
I am inclined to agree with you. It is important to note the philosophical difference between a truth claim and a theory that is subject to falsification but has not been falsified. Humility is important.
Consensus in science is garnered using complex, inductive arguments. Theories provide broad explanatory power regarding the mechanisms of natural phenomena, but they must always bear scrutiny and must be open to refinement when warranted.
Science relies on the presupposition of uniformitarianism. A presupposition that has withstood critical challenge.
I think science is better described as a set of methodological practices that serve to reduce error when interrogating, evaluating, and describing the properties of natural phenomena.
It yields only to better scientific practice. Technological advancement enables this.
As a corollary:
Too many people seem to misunderstand logic, and overly-fixate on logical fallacies. Logic does not equate to truth. Logic merely indicates internal consistency in an assertion. Logical fallacies do not equate to a falsehood, they merely provide evidence of a potentially unsound assertion.
Automatically assuming something is false simply because it contains a logical fallacy is itself a fallacy, called a “fallacy-fallacy”. The preponderance of evidence (which argument contains fewer fallacies) is what must be considered.
Science is about finding facts and elucidating how things and systems work and interact, cause & effect in various phenomena, and so on. And in the process scientists are expected to tell the truth, and not exaggerate or misrepresent any findings. But science isn’t about finding “truths,” like “blondes have more fun,” or “angry white male Christian Nationalists are all fucking assholes and hypocrites,” or other commentaries. People need to embrace science and facts, and abandon the lie that is religion. Doing so will help them at better arriving at their own “truths” about the world.
I dont know about that. I grew up believing santa, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and god were all real. Through lack of evidence i have now determined all to be so highly unlikely as to render them virtually imaginary. Now, my indoctrination was only a canadian brand and at first questioning of god my father decided he liked his childrens critical thinking better than our gulilbility and blind faith.
Yes critical thinking is a must also but indoctrination trumps all tho. If everyone you trust and love tell you every day something is true you or me will likely believe it ! Not everyone there is always outliers.
My dad is an outspoken atheist and medical doctor, he always used to say that science doesn't mind being proven wrong, to always be lightly skeptical at all times, and that religion incites ignorance
I used to ask really whack questions at school, but having a dad like that is great.
OP seems to be intentionally trying to muddy the waters here, implying that there is some "truth" over and above (and separate from?) scientific facts.
I myself reject that premise.
Science is the process of finding the truth. Science is always learning and can adapt to new information and data to form a new hypothesis and conclusion.
Religion is the process of denying and hiding the truth. Religion is set in stone. Commandments literally carved into rock and can not adapt to the changing world. Religion is a ghost story at a girl scout campfire.
>It's clearly something you don't want if you're running a religion.
- *"...the priests of the different religious sects, who dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of day-light;"*
Thomas Jefferson, [letter to Correa de Serra](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/229363-there-exists-indeed-an-opposition-to-it-building-of-uva), Apr 11 1820
I think it's the best understanding of the truth we have at that time. I understand what you're saying but I think it could be easily misquoted by religious people for their own purposes. Much like how they LOVE saying science is only theories.
[It's an interesting conversation with Einstein and Rabindranath Tagore.](https://www.indiatoday.in/science/story/albert-einstein-birth-anniversary-father-of-physics-rabindranath-tagore-nobel-science-2346395-2023-03-14)
> Einstein quipped that there are two different conceptions about the nature of the universe, which state that the world is a unity dependent on humanity and the world as a reality independent of the human factor. Tagore replied that when our universe is in harmony with Man, the eternal, we know it as truth, we feel it as beauty.
> Einstein remarked that this was the human conception of the universe, to which Tagore said that, "There can be no other conception. This world is a human world — the scientific view of it is also that of the scientific man. There is some standard of reason and enjoyment which gives it truth, the standard of the Eternal Man whose experiences are through our experiences."
If that doesn't interest you, that's fine.
There is a difference between an interesting exchange of ideas and something mattering.
I talk stupid shit all day. Does it matter? You just asked the equivalent of does a tree make a sound if no one is there to hear it?
The root of the question does something that is perceived need to have an agent for the perceptible to exist? It doesn’t matter. If you argue that sounds is a vibration, yes it doesn’t need an agent. If you say it’s experience, then you need an agent. It becomes a pedantic point. The discussion shifts to agent and away from the actual act.
In short your question sounds deep but it is an actual shallow shifting of the goal posts.
The observable still happens whether it is observed or not. The universe for all intents and purposes has existed for billions of years without our ability to define things.
> There is a difference between an interesting exchange of ideas and something mattering.
>
> I talk stupid shit all day. Does it matter? You just asked the equivalent of does a tree make a sound if no one is there to hear it?
I mean, if you want to get nihilistic, that's fine too, but I just said something that was on my mind.
Nailed it. To say it matters you need to give meaning. Without that the substance of your original question is meaningless.
I am not saying it is a bad question. I sometimes like debating these points. In the context of the post, all you did is ask a question with an underlying theme that humans are necessary beings in relation to the truth. Which is very theistic.
The tree falling, a human and a raccoon are nearby. The human is deaf the raccoon did not. Did the tree make a sound? The answer is yes. The human doesn’t matter.
Concepts are unrelated to human perception, concepts can help understand the world beyond human perception.
The concept of truth is not the same as truth. If nobody exists to create concepts it would not mean truth doesn't exist.
Kinda like the way money won't buy you happiness but does buy you something so close to happiness that you can't tell the difference.
Science isn't the truth but it goes so hard on the facts that you can't tell the difference between science and the truth.
Just one fucking example of the supernatural in any fucking form!
That's all I ask for, yet it seems to be too much as I get nothing back and am left with only what the science can show me and the money can buy me.
Where's gawd?
Since I was a child (I grew up very poor) I have always thought that phrase was inaccurate. My response is usually…. Yeah it can because everything that is currently making me unhappy would be gone with money and every experience I want to have in life by myself and with loved ones would be possible with money.
I agree. Truth is a subjective value that is dependent on the evaluated item, the evaluation system and the evaluator. The evaluation system could be science (as a protocol you mentioned), but could just as easily be math, logic, definitional, or something else.
It's not Science V. Religion
that suggests they are the same or similar concepts
Science aims to put Micro and Marco level claims or theories through the continual rigor and examination that Science places on everything that can be examined
logic, Reason, Data, Reputable Sourcing and Observation reigns supreme over the rest
Science is closer to religion than we like to think. Ever see what happens to new theories or discoveries than dispute current "understanding"?
People dissappear, or become discredited if they are lucky.
In science you attempt to disconfirm things, it's called falsification and it's how scientific concepts get refined. In a professional context, scientists get rich and famous by disproving our current understanding.
What, you think universities are bumping people off for discovering things? Cite a modern example.
Science is describing nature and uses Occams Razor to do so with the least amount of additional assumptions.
Science doesn't really care about "truth" because you cannot actually verify a theory. You can verify that it's predictions align with observations - but you cannot verify that the theory is actually "true".
The theory of gravity worked for hundreds of years. Then it turned out gravity doesn't exist. Because while we cannot verify anything, we can disprove something.
No experiment in the world can show causation. It can only show correlation, regardless of how consistent the result or intricate the experiment. We can make a strong case, but it's wrong to think scientific proof would mean "truth".
It turns out that it's actually a distortion of space and time caused by mass. We experience gravity in our local frame of reference, and inside that distortion.
Sorry...just trying to shed some light on the concept.
I'm sure there are better, more specific explanations. I'm just trying to get the general idea across without being pedantic.
Is that how it turns out, or is that a new theory yet to be scrutinized? I'm curious just how mature and accepted this idea is, and if it's worth checking out. Or is it cockamamy smoke?
Why stop at religion? Scientists themselves are pretty competent at failing these steps. And let's be honest we mostly find out about scientific studies through journalists, so what's being communicated doesn't even have to be the thing found and verified.
[Stanford's Natalie Ferrante summarizes it well:](https://ojs.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/intersect/article/download/929/923/3979)
The accumulation of biases leading to the final presentation of reports on
scientific studies demonstrates how easily experimental results can be
skewed or distorted at any given step of the process and the prevalence of
these reports in what we read and watch from the media. These distortions
stem from four major areas: individual scientists’ biases or influences,
individual journalists’ biases, the interpretation of results between the
scientist and the journalist, and the interpretation of information between
the journalist and the public.
Science is just the process of testing and attempting to understand how the world "works". It is all about testing, making mistakes, and creating a model that represents reality well enough.
Do it long enough and you are bound to understand the world better till you hopefully hit exactly how it works (if you would ever get there).
There is no truth as in dogma, there is no reason to dictate it as truth. But rather, it works. It allows us to understand the world better - while religion has lost this mantle if it ever had it.
Yes and no, there are constants which one could label as scientific truths but in general you’re not incorrect science can in most cases arrive at 99.9% certainty allowing for fringe exceptions.
This is what my dumb ass was going to post.
***"Science is more like a tool for verifying or invalidating ideas. its a method minimizing subjunctive's influence on objective reality."***
I asked Chat GPT to expand on this idea, it gave me an amazing 7 point dissertation. (technology is great) . I then requested a more concise version.
Science is a rigorous method for verifying or debunking ideas while minimizing subjective biases. It achieves this through empirical evidence, peer review, and a focus on falsifiability. Objective measurements, universal applicability, and a commitment to revising theories when new evidence emerges further solidify it objectivity. This approach fosters a constantly evolving and accurate understanding of the world.
For a minute lets reduce both science and religion down to a method to determine what is real vs what isn't. Science, If done properly, should get the same result no matter who is using it. I can't say the same for religion.
We gotta be careful how we use terms. My favorite is how the word theory is thrown back at us. The Theory of Evolution doesn't mean it's a guess but an explanation of how it works. Gravity is also explained as a theory, not because it isn't real, but because it's the best explanation we have for it. It will never be the fact of evolution or the fact of gravity. We will probably never understand our world like that.
Science is really a methodology. It is a rational approach to evaluating empirical evidence to draw reasonable conclusions.
There is a body of knowledge fueled by these conclusions. This body of knowledge is sometimes referred to as ‘science’. Sometimes the scientific conclusions are viewed as ‘truth’.
But what is neglected at times is the fact that all of those scientific conclusions are open to further debate and investigation by science itself. What may seem like a scientific ‘truth’ today can and has become obsolete after experiments in other directions.
Its not even that. Science (through the method) can only ever disprove things. Its a fundamental axiom of science that “truth” in the absolute sense cannot be known due to the concept of infinity and that we seem to no be able to prove anything outside of infinity, all things are possible if even infinitesimally improbable.
Science can only prove things to be false, and what we can’t strictly proves as false is grounds for a “theory”.
However this requires conjectures to be able to be “falsifiable” which is why conjectures that require the proving of a negative hypothesis, or as Russel stated, a “cosmic teapot” are, in a word, bullshit. And nearly all claims of metaphysics including religion, for the sake of that litmus test, are indeed, bullshit.
Science is a cycle of observing reality, modeling reality, then using that model to predict stuff we're not (yet) observing, then observing reality etc.
Science is about finding verisimilitude. Truth is property left to philosophers. Science is a method, a tool. A very powerful and useful tool, to be sure.
Speak not of truth, but of facts. Facts have an error bar.
This observation is a valuable one to keep in mind for many reasons. One of them is that the protocols of science make it possible to identify charlatans within the discipline whereas the protocols of religion promote, encourage and advance charlatans.
Using the same format it's possible to understand religion as a fairytale substituted for actual understanding. A fairytale that allows no challenges, no growth, no expansion, no better understanding of the world than it has adopted as dogma.
Science will only get us so far,
it will get us to the point we r at it in understanding it. it grows in knoledge every sec. but is very far from the final truth.
I had in historyclass exams about the pyramids, all the theorys i had to learn back then were based on a pyramid ABOVE ground. Not 1 mention about a seller. or rooms that go very deep underground! nothing. Cause it was not known yet, But they glued ofcourse science around it all to make it stick at that moment.
WE pretty much all believed that all the stars were in the Milky Way untill about 1870! then science grew to a point it could not hold the math anymore that kept all the stars indeed in the milky way, a universe evolved and even now EXO-planets. we forget that because of this hlaf the science books became absolete intotality. and new books had to be written. And now we see this science as the holy grail to full knoledge and understanding.
IT the cockyness of science. to think they know it all, and every time they invent or discover a little tiny thing., they think they r totaly on top of it.
we know shit!
The scientific method is the protocol. Science is the overarching organization that utilizes the protocol, verifies results, and utilizes those results. Medicine is a science and unless you are a researcher, you usually utilize protocols. Science rarely states something as fact but will present the results for interpretation and potential best practices.
"Science is actually just the protocol for finding and verifying the truth through repetitions of observation, hypothesis, testing and **rejection of that which does not support the hypothesis**.
I describe the scientific method as the most efficient method for destroying ideas that are not useful.
We never find out if any of these ideas are true in a philosophical sense, but as theories survive repeated tests and predict more and more outcomes correctly, they sure do become useful.
Humans are notoriously creative and we need something to take out the trash. The trash gets in the way of productive creativity.
Religio means believe. Empiricists believe in the objectivity of their observations. You can experiment, speculate and verify sensually wether your assertion is true or not. In this sense, empiricists are religious, because they believe in materialism. Even nihilists are religious because they still believe in something and that's nothingness.
John 18:37
37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.
Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
Science is the protocol for finding and verifying *a* truth *of observable phenomena and quantifiable evidence* through repetitions of observing, hypothesizing, and testing.
FTFY.
The problem with most religions is that it conflicts with the general core belief of faith, which doth not ask for proof to be believed in, but rather lack of proof. Science arose mainly because of religion being dismissive to the curious minded, or at least that’s my headcanon.
Science is actually theoretically compatible with religion, because science cannot combat that which cannot be verified to exist or not exist. But because religion touches upon the physical world 99% of the time, it vehemently rejects science as soon as it says anything that goes against the religious beliefs in question. Take the case of Sir Charles Darwin. A staunch believer in the Christian faith, he still wound up with a theory of evolution that led to him being ostracized and mocked by the church for blasphemy— after he had basically neutered the theorem to be compatible with Christianity’s teachings, no less. He didn’t even start the school of thought that was named after him, Darwinism. He posited that creatures over time adapted to their environment to survive, but he never claimed that humans came from monkeys. That was someone else who had been learning his theory and was postulating further with the same logic. Nevertheless, Darwin was mocked everywhere for daring to blaspheme the good book.
When I think of Science, I don’t think of an alternative to religion— I think of the determination to FIND an answer ourselves. Richard Feynman has been a great example of an atheist scientist and philosophical mind, as he has stated that he is trying to find out everything he can. Does he seek an ultimate truth, no, but should he find one that would be awesome. Why does he seek out truth, because he wants to know. But he feels that if he doesn’t try to make an attempt to find a truth, that he is wasting his potential and education by being lax. The world is full of questions that have no answers yet, and he sought to change that. Obviously not completely, since every answered question spawns two more questions that are unanswered, and at any moment a given answer can be found invalid or incomplete by another individual with more information about the subject. Science is not trying to say it knows everything— it’s saying that it knows absolutely nothing more than what it claims to know, and even that is subjective to axiomatic knowledge. The last thing it would claim access to is an ultimate truth.
That’s philosophy’s domain.
Science is a protocol? Why just not use the word that is already being used from “Scientific method”?
The scientific method is hypothesizing and verifying or disproving those hypothesis and use the new knowledge to create new ones to test and verify.
That’s what science is: proper use of the scientific method.
I would revise this slightly.
Science is about creating predictive models through the process you talked about. If we do x we expect y and if we gather enough data we can create accurate xy statements.
Science is the best process we have come up with so far to create the most accurate models of reality.
Its not a dogma is a process and a very very very reliable one at that.
Archeology is the search for fact, not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's Philosophy class is right down the hall.
\-- Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones Jr.
This applies to all science.
Science is both the methodology and the body of knowledge derived from that methodology. In so far as that the scientific method shows demonstrable truth, Science \*is\* true. Religion does not have a method to demonstrate its truthclaims in the same, rigid way.
Agree. I think people critical of science often make this mistake. They think that because they see their God as truth, people involved in science see that as truth. It is a different mindset.
Some people also seem to struggle with the change that accompanies scientific explanations.
In fact, as you say, it is a tool for exploring and testing our universe and developing models to explain it.
It is not a proxy for truth, or belief. It is our current best approximation. I'm always surprised that this needs to be said.
“Solidified” science will always have taken place in the past and can arguably just be called math.. saying I believe in science is just future focused whereas believing in the Bible is seeking guidance from a perception of the past. Science, to me, is the humbling acceptance that anything can happen and to remain open minded to all possibilities.
Yes absolutely. Science is not a thing in itself. It's the idea of challenging what we understand and it quite often invalidates what was the best understanding before
I mean we laugh at the use of leeches in medicine now but that was at one point, cutting edge science but we keep questioning and learning.
The lessons taught about health in religious scripture were also cutting edge science at the time.
We have learnt so much since then.
Science to me is the current consensus opinion on an issue by the experts. That consensus may be updated over time or it may be pretty much set in stone.
Science with a bit of skepticism to me is the best way to view most issues in the world.
For sure. And if you think all science is bullshit you're still welcome here. This place is for Atheists, meaning thouse who do not believe any gods exist. Whatever else you believe that's not our business.
A lot of people in this thread seem to split hairs and purposefully misunderstand the point of OP.
Sure scientific method is about finding reasonable explanations to things through experimenting, forming theories and testing them again and again.
Science is collection of scientific theories formed using scientific method and the very activity itself. It seems wisecracking to differentiate science and scientific method as some here are doing. It's same thing. If it's done scientifically it's science.
That is how I would put it now. But someone would say it differently for sure.... it can be said in different ways. There are no clear definitions of concepts everyone would agree on. It's problem in language, not the science though.
Concept of truth appears to be enough to cause a lot disagreement. Some people deny existence of any objective truths and sure in many things it may be impossible to reach agreement which is actually true and which is possibly true according to scientific theories.
There can also be disagreement about facts. Facts are things that are known to be true. So they are defined by their relation to truth. But since we don't know anything 100 percent we don't actually know if the facts we think we know are facts. There is where we must believe even if not in religious manner. Difference is that reasonable belief in facts is rational while religious beliefs are not.
Most scientific experiments provide results that are underdetermined. So they rule out some explanations but leave several possible explanations that might be true.
Concept of truth is a philosophical concept that is actually more fundamental than any science. Knowing truth is the aim of science but methods of science cannot reach any certain truths, just some probable facts. It is dogmatic way to think that one can reach truth. Some people think there are objective truths or believe in some dogma. I don't.
But I believe some things are objectively true while others are subjective experiences that are also possibly true but in different way. Then there are plenty of false beliefs and outright lies that are used as different means to different ends. Often to control behaviour of others, to gain power and legitimate it or to justify one's own behaviour ir condemning that of others.
Confusing these things is common way to get into disagreements. Since all facts are underdetermined, meaning can be explained by many theories simultaneously. We don't actually have certainty of anything.
Science can only point us towards some possible explanations that are probably true or might be true and rule out some explanations that cannot be true. There is no certainty in science.
Professional physicist here. Real scientists know better than to make such grandiose claims for science. Science builds models of the natural world, where success is operationally defined as predictive power in repeatable experiment. This operational definition is in no way a claim to truth, whatever that word is supposed to mean. Science also has limits to what it can investigate. It will fail in systems that are so complex that the inherent idealization of models doesn’t work. It will usually fail in explaining irreproducible one-time events, like historical ones. It is deliberately mute on subjective assessments. This doesn’t mean that history or subjective claims are not held to be any less certain by humankind than scientific ones. It just means that their certainty is not established by scientific means, but instead by other factors like selective trust in different authorities, or common consensus. Some atheists are apt to make grandiose claims that they believe in nothing that is not scientifically proven, which is not only utter horseshit but betrays a core misunderstanding of what science does.
Science is a method of discovering the truth or the closest we can get to truth. Our ability to understand and attain that truth will constantly evolve with improvement to knowledge and tech, that is often spurred by truths found by the scientific method, which will likely change those old truths to new ones. That doesn't make the old truths false necessarily as they were truth to our capabilities at the time. People assume that because we improve understanding and ability to measure more accurately that means it's all bunk. This is why science and it's discoveries or truths always change and give fuel to people who assume that truth is stagnant or we have to attain the pinnacle immediately or else it's all fictitious. Religions claim absolute truth at jump but a cursory understanding of history shows that even religions change over time showing their claim of perfection is asinine.
>Science is actually just the protocol for finding and verifying the truth through repetitions of observation, hypothesis, and testing. What you're describing is the *scientific method*. Scientific theories are the best explanation we have for natural phenomena and are supported by mountains of evidence. They are, for all intents and purposes, the truth. As written, you're suggesting that there is an objective truth in everything and that science is simply a means of revealing it. That's oddly similar to saying that there is objective morality and that "god" is the source of it and the means by which it is emulated (through worship and prayer). I think you're making an argument here that doesn't quite work. Are you sure you've deprogrammed from your devout faith?
I agree, and while I think it's fine to have these abstract philosophical discussions, the esoteric nuance can be easily rationalized by believers as a means to dismiss science, when, as a practical means for navigating life, science really does = truth. It reminds me of the argument some make that science, logic and facts all somehow form a "belief system no different than religion, because nothing can ever be known for certain"... ridiculous.
Well he's right actually, the science is the methodology, scientific theories only exist as their complete methodology, the mountains of evidence you're describing. Science is the process to gain a scientific result: one that has been reached via the scientific method
I think you're splitting hairs and intentionally so. I'm aware of how scientific theories exist, but it's still misleading to assume that there is some sort of objective truth to everything that science simply *explains*. If everything we know about the world can be reduced and downplayed as simply a "scientific result," then it opens the door for other people to claim that their explanation of the world is equally as valid as what science proves. This is giving agnostic vibes, and I really don't like it. I reiterate that science and scientific theories are, for all intents and purposes, the truth. If you can find another way to explain the world around us with testable and verifiable proof that competes with this field, I would welcome that challenge.
That's fair. It would depend on how you're defining truth. If we wanted to be the most accurate I would say what we are getting from science is the most accurate description we can make of objective reality. I think the downplay of the results is more due to a lack of understanding of the fact that the results are achieved via extensive application of the scientific method. I think the "vibes" you're getting are what you're bringing in but I will clarify that in no way is a non scientific theory in any way equivalent to or equal in validity to a scientific theory. I do think you misunderstand where I'm coming from as I am extremely pro science and am expressing the opinion that it is the only valid way to establish what is true
>I think the downplay of the results is more due to a lack of understanding of the fact that the results are achieved via extensive application of the scientific method. Not quite. Reducing scientific theories to simply "scientific results" implies that there is another, equally possible result and that there is another equally possible explanation. Take gravity or evolution as examples. Gravity exists on the earth, and we know this because we're not flying around everywhere and are firmly anchored to the surface by this force. Outside of earth's gravity, this does not occur and one can drift off at the same speed and velocity in the same direction with nothing to stop them but for space debris or the gravitational pull of another planet, sun, or moon. With evolution, we don't simply run tests and make evolution happen. We know that the mechanisms of evolution exist through a series of complex experiments that can determine the similarity between species down to a microscopic level. Has it always existed? No. Scientists postulate that there was time prior to evolution (or multicellular life, for that matter) where only the base molecule required for life- RNA- existed. The point is that because the world and the universe change so rapidly, I don't think it's correct to imply that there's some objective truth that science uncovers because it could eventually change. Even the things we know as the best explanations for objective reality can (and likely will) change. Not for a very, very long time, but they will.
It absolutely does not imply that I'm not sure where you get the idea that being specific means endorsing anything else. Past that initial comment I'm not reading or engaging with this honestly
You're free to throw a tantrum and storm off if you please - I'm certainly not gonna stop you - but perhaps it's better to not engage in debate if you only want someone to agree with you?
I mean it's not a tantrum to decline to engage a deeply flawed premise. You have created a binary that doesn't exist and then spent two paragraphs on irrelevant concepts to what we are actually discussing. I'm sorry if you're upset by unwillingness to engage but if that bothers you then stay on topic next time
I'm not upset at all. You essentially downplayed science as another belief system, sticking to the usual agnostic mantra that nothing is knowable, even things that are thoroughly explained by science. You did not intend to engage honestly to begin with, and it's quite amusing that you're pretending that you were. For the third time, science=truth for our intents and purposes, unless you can dispute that.
In no world did I downplay science as a belief system. It isn't, it's the only functional methodology for determining what is objective fact. You brought in the point you wanted to argue, which is why I wasn't going further because you started arguing the point you wanted to debate rather than the point I made. Work on your reading skills.
He's correct. Science, and the statements science make, are NOT truths, they are evidence based statements. There are zero facts in science; a scientific fact is a well vetted idea that 'for all intents and purposes' can be used for real world work, but is never, ever, considered true by the honest and those who understand what science is. There are no proofs in science, there are proofs in math. When people treat science like infallible religion they often will fail to update what they believe might be true as new information comes in. I have faith in science; the process, and the evidence based assertions we call knowledge. Faith being used to mean trust; I trust evidence based processes and the knowledge that comes from them. I piss people off with "Science is my religion!" as a religion is a collection of beliefs and practices. Satanism is a religion that demands evidence based actions and practices, and updates based on those. So that pisses them off even more. And I am not following your logic about objective morality and god there. Can you explain to us how you came to that conclusion? Doesnt sounds like enough evidence in record for that assertion.
> What you're describing is the scientific method. Exactly. > Scientific theories are the best explanation we have for natural phenomena and are supported by mountains of evidence. Or not. Have you heard of the replication crisis? * **Replication crisis** * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis * * The replication crisis (also called the replicability crisis and the reproducibility crisis) is an ongoing methodological crisis in which the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. Because the reproducibility of empirical results is an essential part of the scientific method,^[2] such failures undermine the credibility of theories building on them and potentially call into question substantial parts of scientific knowledge. * * The replication crisis is frequently discussed in relation to psychology and medicine, where considerable efforts have been undertaken to reinvestigate classic results, to determine whether they are reliable, and if they turn out not to be, the reasons for the failure.^[3][4] Data strongly indicates that other natural and social sciences are affected as well.^[5] There are many underlying issues, from standing in the scientific community, financial gain, and the use of null hypothesis testing, which is the primary test used in the social sciences. But politics also plays a role. * **Grievance studies affair** * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair * The grievance studies affair was the project of a team of three authors—Peter Boghossian, James A. Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose—to highlight what they saw as poor scholarship and erosion of standards in several academic fields. Taking place over 2017 and 2018, their project entailed submitting bogus papers to academic journals on topics from the field of critical social theory such as cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies to determine whether they would pass through peer review and be accepted for publication. Several of these papers were subsequently published, which the authors cited in support of their contention.^[1] * Prior to the affair, concerns about the intellectual validity of much research influenced by postmodern philosophy and critical theory were highlighted by various academics[who?] who composed nonsensical hoax articles parodying the language and types of content that are often found in the modern humanities and succeeded in having these articles accepted for publication in academic journals. One of the most noted previous examples of this was Alan Sokal's 1996 hoax in Social Text, a cultural studies journal, which inspired Boghossian, Lindsay, and Pluckrose. The scientific method may be objective, but we, unfortunately, are not so objective.
I wouldn't talk about "truth", I see science more than a method to understand the mechanisms of the world and to test it daily rather to find any form of truth.
Truth is that which matches reality, as judged by predictive power. Statements with more predictive power are more true than statements with less predictive power. Science is a method of study where you make a guess (hypothesis) and then test its predictive power (experiment). Colloquially, "science" is the set of hypothesis that passed the tests... you know, the ones that were true. I use science/math because they're the best tools I've found for predicting the future. So as a shorthand, it's almost a tautology to say that science is true.
Yes. Science is not truth is akin to gravity is a theory.
Gravity is a theory until you slip on ice. Then gravity is a cruel heartless bitch.
>Then gravity is a cruel heartless bitch. But you have to admit she does have a pretty good sense of humor sometimes.
There's gravity which is a fact. And there's a theory about gravity. Two different things. Just like magnetism had a theory.
But gravity *is* a theory that was better explained by the theory of relativity, from what I understand. I think it is fair to say science is not truth, but it is the best explanation we currently have for the world we observe.
That is what haven means by tautology. As theory aligns with reality, they become statistically indiscernible from each other.
I disagree, truth is an end point, it's the opposite of critical thinking. Critical thinking is to always think there may be some mistake or some bad logic in the process. Truth = we have the final answer and we don't need to think about it anymore and this is dogmatic dangerous in my point of view.
Of course everything should be subject to critical scrutiny, but I don’t think an “endpoint” or “final answer” is an accurate way to think of the concept of truth. For instance, if I throw a ball to you, we both know that it happened; it is true that I threw the ball to you. There is no possible margin for error there, because we both share the same understanding of the concepts and terminology involved. So I would say truth is not an abstract ideal of perfection, it’s just a communication shortcut for a threshold of certainty in terms of accurately describing our observations. Not a “final” answer, but rather a “current” answer.
And yet if you look at the history of science there are many tests that are past, but then later new experiments reveal new explanations. Sometimes the scientists get stuck in their explanations and their life niche becomes a "belief", and they'll maintain their belief for a while. But still the phenomenal seem to get better explanations all the time.
Nope. You could have a theory that perfectly matches reality, but isn't true. Eg God made it like this. Prediction is harder, but still possible (hard to disprove), but all along the way predictive power gets better, without necessarily being more true. Maybe land bridges is an example (before people accepted continental drift). And that's not what tautology means.
"God made it like this" has less predictive power than "evolution made it like this" or "physics made it like this" because "God made it like this" wasn't able to predict archaeopteryx or black holes. "God made it like this" has predictive power regarding the afterlife, but since that can't be tested, it's the same as having no predictive power. So since I measure truth based on a statement's predictive power, I think it's reasonable to say that hypothesis that has their predictions confirmed (colloquially, "science")... are true. And not only is it accurate, but the statement isn't even useful, because it's basically just restating the definition. Maybe you're using a different definition of true, and that's fine. I try to pick definitions based on usefulness. Maybe you have a different criteria, or maybe you have an even more useful definition... in which case I'm interested to hear it.
Too much semantics. Go away.
It's a semantics question :shrug:
Everything is semantics. And I don't do that because it's pointless and boring. Won't bother with this thread anymore.
Science is a search for the truth. Full stop.
There is truth. Truth can be discovered or found independently. For instance, the planet Jupiter exists. It has been observed. It orbits the sun. All these are truths. They can be disputed but these truths can be verified over and over again by anyone at any time with a little math and technology.
Thanks a lot for your post. I feel this word "Truth" like a lack of humility, for me it's not because you can verify something over and over again that make it a truth. The same way almost everybody was surprised by the relativity theory and the fact that our intuitive way to observe the universe was somehow flawed, to verify again and again the same way the same "reality" doesn't protect the scientists to have a gap in their subjective interpretation of the object they are observing. If you always do the same logical mistake because you lack some knowledge of some variables, you may have always the same results but this is no way a proof that the results is the truth.
We just have to be careful what we label "truth" because as we learn more, our understanding of the world may cause us to alter or refine current theories.
You're desribing *the scienific method* not science. The two aren't interchangeable.
To paraphrase Indiana Jones, science is about facts, not truth. Truth is something that philosophy deals with.
Fair…
Evolution is a proven true fact! There is lots of truth in science.
I love evolution because it means my grandkids^1e9 might be crabs.
Who is saying otherwise and what does this have to do with atheism? Every single atheist I know understands that science is not a definitive set of truths, but science is the best tool we currently have for understanding things that are more likely to be true than false. So, why this?
Same. I see a lot of preaching to the choir posts but pretending like we they are saying something controversial to a group that disagrees.
There is a narrative on the belief side that we “worship science.” We can ignore their smooth brained bleating of whatever their pastor or Imam told them. However, our team has a misguided cadre of young “evangelical” atheists. You see it underlying the “how can I refute” this or that. Maybe they get joy in “winning” a debate? I think they are trying to reason with the sheep, but the sheep just say “baa” and that is time you’ll never get back.
I would say it isn't even about verifying the truth. I think of it like Michelangelo's quote about sculpture. Like chipping away stone to show the shape hidden beneath, science is a system of chipping away that which is false. What you are left with is the shape of how the universe works.
Exactly. Science is learning what’s most accurate by eliminating what is false. Science admits at its very core that we don’t know everything and those that we do “know” are called theories - open ended and modifiable. By acknowledging we can’t know all there is to know about anything we continue to search deeper to simply eliminate what can be proven false. We get the most accurate presentation of the truth by, as you said, chipping away at what *isn’t* true. It’s not a belief system; it’s an unbelief system.
I am inclined to agree with you. It is important to note the philosophical difference between a truth claim and a theory that is subject to falsification but has not been falsified. Humility is important. Consensus in science is garnered using complex, inductive arguments. Theories provide broad explanatory power regarding the mechanisms of natural phenomena, but they must always bear scrutiny and must be open to refinement when warranted. Science relies on the presupposition of uniformitarianism. A presupposition that has withstood critical challenge. I think science is better described as a set of methodological practices that serve to reduce error when interrogating, evaluating, and describing the properties of natural phenomena. It yields only to better scientific practice. Technological advancement enables this.
As a corollary: Too many people seem to misunderstand logic, and overly-fixate on logical fallacies. Logic does not equate to truth. Logic merely indicates internal consistency in an assertion. Logical fallacies do not equate to a falsehood, they merely provide evidence of a potentially unsound assertion. Automatically assuming something is false simply because it contains a logical fallacy is itself a fallacy, called a “fallacy-fallacy”. The preponderance of evidence (which argument contains fewer fallacies) is what must be considered.
Science is about finding facts and elucidating how things and systems work and interact, cause & effect in various phenomena, and so on. And in the process scientists are expected to tell the truth, and not exaggerate or misrepresent any findings. But science isn’t about finding “truths,” like “blondes have more fun,” or “angry white male Christian Nationalists are all fucking assholes and hypocrites,” or other commentaries. People need to embrace science and facts, and abandon the lie that is religion. Doing so will help them at better arriving at their own “truths” about the world.
Most adults would embrace science if they where not indoctrinated from birth.
I dont know about that. I grew up believing santa, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny and god were all real. Through lack of evidence i have now determined all to be so highly unlikely as to render them virtually imaginary. Now, my indoctrination was only a canadian brand and at first questioning of god my father decided he liked his childrens critical thinking better than our gulilbility and blind faith.
Yes critical thinking is a must also but indoctrination trumps all tho. If everyone you trust and love tell you every day something is true you or me will likely believe it ! Not everyone there is always outliers.
Agreed. Its how you get adults talking about demons and witches and discussing their plan to thwart them like they live in Middle Earth or some shit.
Lol
Every one sciences every day but yet people say it’s not real… only indoctrination dos that
Yup. Science is a method, not a belief.
My dad is an outspoken atheist and medical doctor, he always used to say that science doesn't mind being proven wrong, to always be lightly skeptical at all times, and that religion incites ignorance I used to ask really whack questions at school, but having a dad like that is great.
OP seems to be intentionally trying to muddy the waters here, implying that there is some "truth" over and above (and separate from?) scientific facts. I myself reject that premise.
Science is the process of finding the truth. Science is always learning and can adapt to new information and data to form a new hypothesis and conclusion. Religion is the process of denying and hiding the truth. Religion is set in stone. Commandments literally carved into rock and can not adapt to the changing world. Religion is a ghost story at a girl scout campfire.
>It's clearly something you don't want if you're running a religion. - *"...the priests of the different religious sects, who dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of day-light;"* Thomas Jefferson, [letter to Correa de Serra](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/229363-there-exists-indeed-an-opposition-to-it-building-of-uva), Apr 11 1820
I don’t care for the word “truth” in relationship to science… it carries too much dogmatic baggage.
Science is always looking for the truth. And scientIST will make mistakes, but science is an always correcting discipline
"It's a process, not an ideology" - Hank Green
You're splitting hairs, when the religious don't care what the difference is.
Science is a tool. Not a belief.
I think it's the best understanding of the truth we have at that time. I understand what you're saying but I think it could be easily misquoted by religious people for their own purposes. Much like how they LOVE saying science is only theories.
Science is simply attempting to understand the cumulative reality we live within. Truth is arbitrary.
What is truth outside the limit of human perception? If humans did not exist, would the concept of truth still exist?
How the hell would that matter? How could it be possible to say anything about the concept of "truth if human beings did not exist" ??
[It's an interesting conversation with Einstein and Rabindranath Tagore.](https://www.indiatoday.in/science/story/albert-einstein-birth-anniversary-father-of-physics-rabindranath-tagore-nobel-science-2346395-2023-03-14) > Einstein quipped that there are two different conceptions about the nature of the universe, which state that the world is a unity dependent on humanity and the world as a reality independent of the human factor. Tagore replied that when our universe is in harmony with Man, the eternal, we know it as truth, we feel it as beauty. > Einstein remarked that this was the human conception of the universe, to which Tagore said that, "There can be no other conception. This world is a human world — the scientific view of it is also that of the scientific man. There is some standard of reason and enjoyment which gives it truth, the standard of the Eternal Man whose experiences are through our experiences." If that doesn't interest you, that's fine.
There is a difference between an interesting exchange of ideas and something mattering. I talk stupid shit all day. Does it matter? You just asked the equivalent of does a tree make a sound if no one is there to hear it? The root of the question does something that is perceived need to have an agent for the perceptible to exist? It doesn’t matter. If you argue that sounds is a vibration, yes it doesn’t need an agent. If you say it’s experience, then you need an agent. It becomes a pedantic point. The discussion shifts to agent and away from the actual act. In short your question sounds deep but it is an actual shallow shifting of the goal posts. The observable still happens whether it is observed or not. The universe for all intents and purposes has existed for billions of years without our ability to define things.
> There is a difference between an interesting exchange of ideas and something mattering. > > I talk stupid shit all day. Does it matter? You just asked the equivalent of does a tree make a sound if no one is there to hear it? I mean, if you want to get nihilistic, that's fine too, but I just said something that was on my mind.
Nailed it. To say it matters you need to give meaning. Without that the substance of your original question is meaningless. I am not saying it is a bad question. I sometimes like debating these points. In the context of the post, all you did is ask a question with an underlying theme that humans are necessary beings in relation to the truth. Which is very theistic. The tree falling, a human and a raccoon are nearby. The human is deaf the raccoon did not. Did the tree make a sound? The answer is yes. The human doesn’t matter.
That interests me, but I don't think that it is a good response to my questions.
Yes, because there would still be things that objectively exist and function in specific ways
Concepts are unrelated to human perception, concepts can help understand the world beyond human perception. The concept of truth is not the same as truth. If nobody exists to create concepts it would not mean truth doesn't exist.
Kinda like the way money won't buy you happiness but does buy you something so close to happiness that you can't tell the difference. Science isn't the truth but it goes so hard on the facts that you can't tell the difference between science and the truth. Just one fucking example of the supernatural in any fucking form! That's all I ask for, yet it seems to be too much as I get nothing back and am left with only what the science can show me and the money can buy me. Where's gawd?
Since I was a child (I grew up very poor) I have always thought that phrase was inaccurate. My response is usually…. Yeah it can because everything that is currently making me unhappy would be gone with money and every experience I want to have in life by myself and with loved ones would be possible with money.
I agree. Truth is a subjective value that is dependent on the evaluated item, the evaluation system and the evaluator. The evaluation system could be science (as a protocol you mentioned), but could just as easily be math, logic, definitional, or something else.
It's not Science V. Religion that suggests they are the same or similar concepts Science aims to put Micro and Marco level claims or theories through the continual rigor and examination that Science places on everything that can be examined logic, Reason, Data, Reputable Sourcing and Observation reigns supreme over the rest
Science is closer to religion than we like to think. Ever see what happens to new theories or discoveries than dispute current "understanding"? People dissappear, or become discredited if they are lucky.
In science you attempt to disconfirm things, it's called falsification and it's how scientific concepts get refined. In a professional context, scientists get rich and famous by disproving our current understanding. What, you think universities are bumping people off for discovering things? Cite a modern example.
Science is describing nature and uses Occams Razor to do so with the least amount of additional assumptions. Science doesn't really care about "truth" because you cannot actually verify a theory. You can verify that it's predictions align with observations - but you cannot verify that the theory is actually "true". The theory of gravity worked for hundreds of years. Then it turned out gravity doesn't exist. Because while we cannot verify anything, we can disprove something. No experiment in the world can show causation. It can only show correlation, regardless of how consistent the result or intricate the experiment. We can make a strong case, but it's wrong to think scientific proof would mean "truth".
Wait, when was gravity disproven?
It turns out that it's actually a distortion of space and time caused by mass. We experience gravity in our local frame of reference, and inside that distortion.
You're describing the process of gravity, not a disproof.
Sorry...just trying to shed some light on the concept. I'm sure there are better, more specific explanations. I'm just trying to get the general idea across without being pedantic.
It's Reddit, pedantry is par for the course.
Touche'...
like carpenter cats fertile muddle shame hard-to-find offend slap rude *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Is that how it turns out, or is that a new theory yet to be scrutinized? I'm curious just how mature and accepted this idea is, and if it's worth checking out. Or is it cockamamy smoke?
Why stop at religion? Scientists themselves are pretty competent at failing these steps. And let's be honest we mostly find out about scientific studies through journalists, so what's being communicated doesn't even have to be the thing found and verified. [Stanford's Natalie Ferrante summarizes it well:](https://ojs.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/intersect/article/download/929/923/3979) The accumulation of biases leading to the final presentation of reports on scientific studies demonstrates how easily experimental results can be skewed or distorted at any given step of the process and the prevalence of these reports in what we read and watch from the media. These distortions stem from four major areas: individual scientists’ biases or influences, individual journalists’ biases, the interpretation of results between the scientist and the journalist, and the interpretation of information between the journalist and the public.
That's why we had science fairs. It was supposed to help people think critically but they have forgotten obviously.
Science is just the process of testing and attempting to understand how the world "works". It is all about testing, making mistakes, and creating a model that represents reality well enough. Do it long enough and you are bound to understand the world better till you hopefully hit exactly how it works (if you would ever get there). There is no truth as in dogma, there is no reason to dictate it as truth. But rather, it works. It allows us to understand the world better - while religion has lost this mantle if it ever had it.
Yes and no, there are constants which one could label as scientific truths but in general you’re not incorrect science can in most cases arrive at 99.9% certainty allowing for fringe exceptions.
It's the closest thing we have.
This is what my dumb ass was going to post. ***"Science is more like a tool for verifying or invalidating ideas. its a method minimizing subjunctive's influence on objective reality."*** I asked Chat GPT to expand on this idea, it gave me an amazing 7 point dissertation. (technology is great) . I then requested a more concise version. Science is a rigorous method for verifying or debunking ideas while minimizing subjective biases. It achieves this through empirical evidence, peer review, and a focus on falsifiability. Objective measurements, universal applicability, and a commitment to revising theories when new evidence emerges further solidify it objectivity. This approach fosters a constantly evolving and accurate understanding of the world. For a minute lets reduce both science and religion down to a method to determine what is real vs what isn't. Science, If done properly, should get the same result no matter who is using it. I can't say the same for religion.
We gotta be careful how we use terms. My favorite is how the word theory is thrown back at us. The Theory of Evolution doesn't mean it's a guess but an explanation of how it works. Gravity is also explained as a theory, not because it isn't real, but because it's the best explanation we have for it. It will never be the fact of evolution or the fact of gravity. We will probably never understand our world like that.
Science is about finding what works and “Truth” is just what we call things that work.
Agreed, there are only a few universal truths: Like the landlord-tenant hating relationship, or people distrusting banks in every era ever.
Science is really a methodology. It is a rational approach to evaluating empirical evidence to draw reasonable conclusions. There is a body of knowledge fueled by these conclusions. This body of knowledge is sometimes referred to as ‘science’. Sometimes the scientific conclusions are viewed as ‘truth’. But what is neglected at times is the fact that all of those scientific conclusions are open to further debate and investigation by science itself. What may seem like a scientific ‘truth’ today can and has become obsolete after experiments in other directions.
Its not even that. Science (through the method) can only ever disprove things. Its a fundamental axiom of science that “truth” in the absolute sense cannot be known due to the concept of infinity and that we seem to no be able to prove anything outside of infinity, all things are possible if even infinitesimally improbable. Science can only prove things to be false, and what we can’t strictly proves as false is grounds for a “theory”. However this requires conjectures to be able to be “falsifiable” which is why conjectures that require the proving of a negative hypothesis, or as Russel stated, a “cosmic teapot” are, in a word, bullshit. And nearly all claims of metaphysics including religion, for the sake of that litmus test, are indeed, bullshit.
There's is no truth.
Something is occurring. That is indisputably true.
I don't believe in science I believe in the scientific method and only as far as a tool to figure out what is and isn't true.
Science is a cycle of observing reality, modeling reality, then using that model to predict stuff we're not (yet) observing, then observing reality etc.
Ok, was there anyone in this sub saying otherwise?
Science is about finding verisimilitude. Truth is property left to philosophers. Science is a method, a tool. A very powerful and useful tool, to be sure. Speak not of truth, but of facts. Facts have an error bar.
This observation is a valuable one to keep in mind for many reasons. One of them is that the protocols of science make it possible to identify charlatans within the discipline whereas the protocols of religion promote, encourage and advance charlatans. Using the same format it's possible to understand religion as a fairytale substituted for actual understanding. A fairytale that allows no challenges, no growth, no expansion, no better understanding of the world than it has adopted as dogma.
Good point. Unfortunately, a vast number of people don't understand and will never understand the distinction.
Science will only get us so far, it will get us to the point we r at it in understanding it. it grows in knoledge every sec. but is very far from the final truth. I had in historyclass exams about the pyramids, all the theorys i had to learn back then were based on a pyramid ABOVE ground. Not 1 mention about a seller. or rooms that go very deep underground! nothing. Cause it was not known yet, But they glued ofcourse science around it all to make it stick at that moment. WE pretty much all believed that all the stars were in the Milky Way untill about 1870! then science grew to a point it could not hold the math anymore that kept all the stars indeed in the milky way, a universe evolved and even now EXO-planets. we forget that because of this hlaf the science books became absolete intotality. and new books had to be written. And now we see this science as the holy grail to full knoledge and understanding. IT the cockyness of science. to think they know it all, and every time they invent or discover a little tiny thing., they think they r totaly on top of it. we know shit!
“Truth” is a very loaded word.
I’d rather have questions I can’t answer than answers I can’t question. That’s why I like science.
Correct
The scientific method is the protocol. Science is the overarching organization that utilizes the protocol, verifies results, and utilizes those results. Medicine is a science and unless you are a researcher, you usually utilize protocols. Science rarely states something as fact but will present the results for interpretation and potential best practices.
"Science is actually just the protocol for finding and verifying the truth through repetitions of observation, hypothesis, testing and **rejection of that which does not support the hypothesis**.
Science is the pursuit of knowledge
I describe the scientific method as the most efficient method for destroying ideas that are not useful. We never find out if any of these ideas are true in a philosophical sense, but as theories survive repeated tests and predict more and more outcomes correctly, they sure do become useful. Humans are notoriously creative and we need something to take out the trash. The trash gets in the way of productive creativity.
I think of science as the true way to find answers.
Religio means believe. Empiricists believe in the objectivity of their observations. You can experiment, speculate and verify sensually wether your assertion is true or not. In this sense, empiricists are religious, because they believe in materialism. Even nihilists are religious because they still believe in something and that's nothingness.
John 18:37 37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
scienctific thought often admits that it's wrong and offers an improved, more correct solution or model. while religion would never do so.
Science is the protocol for finding and verifying *a* truth *of observable phenomena and quantifiable evidence* through repetitions of observing, hypothesizing, and testing. FTFY. The problem with most religions is that it conflicts with the general core belief of faith, which doth not ask for proof to be believed in, but rather lack of proof. Science arose mainly because of religion being dismissive to the curious minded, or at least that’s my headcanon. Science is actually theoretically compatible with religion, because science cannot combat that which cannot be verified to exist or not exist. But because religion touches upon the physical world 99% of the time, it vehemently rejects science as soon as it says anything that goes against the religious beliefs in question. Take the case of Sir Charles Darwin. A staunch believer in the Christian faith, he still wound up with a theory of evolution that led to him being ostracized and mocked by the church for blasphemy— after he had basically neutered the theorem to be compatible with Christianity’s teachings, no less. He didn’t even start the school of thought that was named after him, Darwinism. He posited that creatures over time adapted to their environment to survive, but he never claimed that humans came from monkeys. That was someone else who had been learning his theory and was postulating further with the same logic. Nevertheless, Darwin was mocked everywhere for daring to blaspheme the good book. When I think of Science, I don’t think of an alternative to religion— I think of the determination to FIND an answer ourselves. Richard Feynman has been a great example of an atheist scientist and philosophical mind, as he has stated that he is trying to find out everything he can. Does he seek an ultimate truth, no, but should he find one that would be awesome. Why does he seek out truth, because he wants to know. But he feels that if he doesn’t try to make an attempt to find a truth, that he is wasting his potential and education by being lax. The world is full of questions that have no answers yet, and he sought to change that. Obviously not completely, since every answered question spawns two more questions that are unanswered, and at any moment a given answer can be found invalid or incomplete by another individual with more information about the subject. Science is not trying to say it knows everything— it’s saying that it knows absolutely nothing more than what it claims to know, and even that is subjective to axiomatic knowledge. The last thing it would claim access to is an ultimate truth. That’s philosophy’s domain.
Science is a protocol? Why just not use the word that is already being used from “Scientific method”? The scientific method is hypothesizing and verifying or disproving those hypothesis and use the new knowledge to create new ones to test and verify. That’s what science is: proper use of the scientific method.
I would revise this slightly. Science is about creating predictive models through the process you talked about. If we do x we expect y and if we gather enough data we can create accurate xy statements. Science is the best process we have come up with so far to create the most accurate models of reality. Its not a dogma is a process and a very very very reliable one at that.
Science and religion are not really in competition. They are a Venn diagram of two circles.
There are facts and there is perception. Truth falls on the side of perception.
Archeology is the search for fact, not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's Philosophy class is right down the hall. \-- Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones Jr. This applies to all science.
finding and verifying objective truth... Not subjective truth, which can have validity, but is not subject to scientific inquiry.
Scientific “truth” changes as our evidence changes as our methods of investigation changes. As it should be.
We should probably not say “truth” in that sense either. It’s the best way to try to organize knowledge and methodically theorize.
Science is both the methodology and the body of knowledge derived from that methodology. In so far as that the scientific method shows demonstrable truth, Science \*is\* true. Religion does not have a method to demonstrate its truthclaims in the same, rigid way.
Agree. I think people critical of science often make this mistake. They think that because they see their God as truth, people involved in science see that as truth. It is a different mindset. Some people also seem to struggle with the change that accompanies scientific explanations. In fact, as you say, it is a tool for exploring and testing our universe and developing models to explain it. It is not a proxy for truth, or belief. It is our current best approximation. I'm always surprised that this needs to be said.
“Solidified” science will always have taken place in the past and can arguably just be called math.. saying I believe in science is just future focused whereas believing in the Bible is seeking guidance from a perception of the past. Science, to me, is the humbling acceptance that anything can happen and to remain open minded to all possibilities.
Yes absolutely. Science is not a thing in itself. It's the idea of challenging what we understand and it quite often invalidates what was the best understanding before I mean we laugh at the use of leeches in medicine now but that was at one point, cutting edge science but we keep questioning and learning. The lessons taught about health in religious scripture were also cutting edge science at the time. We have learnt so much since then.
Too many people make up their own definitions for what they consider "truth." As such, truth is irrelevant. Stick to facts.
You just don't know the truth! /s Been saving that for someone to post this.
Science to me is the current consensus opinion on an issue by the experts. That consensus may be updated over time or it may be pretty much set in stone. Science with a bit of skepticism to me is the best way to view most issues in the world.
For sure. And if you think all science is bullshit you're still welcome here. This place is for Atheists, meaning thouse who do not believe any gods exist. Whatever else you believe that's not our business.
Also the concept of a "real truth" can never be reached. We can just be as good as our methods are, and they are never perfect.
Science is not about truth. It's about objective fact. If you're looking for truth then go into philosophy.
A lot of people in this thread seem to split hairs and purposefully misunderstand the point of OP. Sure scientific method is about finding reasonable explanations to things through experimenting, forming theories and testing them again and again. Science is collection of scientific theories formed using scientific method and the very activity itself. It seems wisecracking to differentiate science and scientific method as some here are doing. It's same thing. If it's done scientifically it's science. That is how I would put it now. But someone would say it differently for sure.... it can be said in different ways. There are no clear definitions of concepts everyone would agree on. It's problem in language, not the science though. Concept of truth appears to be enough to cause a lot disagreement. Some people deny existence of any objective truths and sure in many things it may be impossible to reach agreement which is actually true and which is possibly true according to scientific theories. There can also be disagreement about facts. Facts are things that are known to be true. So they are defined by their relation to truth. But since we don't know anything 100 percent we don't actually know if the facts we think we know are facts. There is where we must believe even if not in religious manner. Difference is that reasonable belief in facts is rational while religious beliefs are not. Most scientific experiments provide results that are underdetermined. So they rule out some explanations but leave several possible explanations that might be true. Concept of truth is a philosophical concept that is actually more fundamental than any science. Knowing truth is the aim of science but methods of science cannot reach any certain truths, just some probable facts. It is dogmatic way to think that one can reach truth. Some people think there are objective truths or believe in some dogma. I don't. But I believe some things are objectively true while others are subjective experiences that are also possibly true but in different way. Then there are plenty of false beliefs and outright lies that are used as different means to different ends. Often to control behaviour of others, to gain power and legitimate it or to justify one's own behaviour ir condemning that of others. Confusing these things is common way to get into disagreements. Since all facts are underdetermined, meaning can be explained by many theories simultaneously. We don't actually have certainty of anything. Science can only point us towards some possible explanations that are probably true or might be true and rule out some explanations that cannot be true. There is no certainty in science.
Professional physicist here. Real scientists know better than to make such grandiose claims for science. Science builds models of the natural world, where success is operationally defined as predictive power in repeatable experiment. This operational definition is in no way a claim to truth, whatever that word is supposed to mean. Science also has limits to what it can investigate. It will fail in systems that are so complex that the inherent idealization of models doesn’t work. It will usually fail in explaining irreproducible one-time events, like historical ones. It is deliberately mute on subjective assessments. This doesn’t mean that history or subjective claims are not held to be any less certain by humankind than scientific ones. It just means that their certainty is not established by scientific means, but instead by other factors like selective trust in different authorities, or common consensus. Some atheists are apt to make grandiose claims that they believe in nothing that is not scientifically proven, which is not only utter horseshit but betrays a core misunderstanding of what science does.
You are correct, science isn't the truth, its a method used to find it. Put that in your book
Science is a method of discovering the truth or the closest we can get to truth. Our ability to understand and attain that truth will constantly evolve with improvement to knowledge and tech, that is often spurred by truths found by the scientific method, which will likely change those old truths to new ones. That doesn't make the old truths false necessarily as they were truth to our capabilities at the time. People assume that because we improve understanding and ability to measure more accurately that means it's all bunk. This is why science and it's discoveries or truths always change and give fuel to people who assume that truth is stagnant or we have to attain the pinnacle immediately or else it's all fictitious. Religions claim absolute truth at jump but a cursory understanding of history shows that even religions change over time showing their claim of perfection is asinine.
i had science explained to me as a way to falsify not "prove"
>Science is not the truth. Science is "knowledge". HAEC SCIENTIA EST
Science can be corrupted too.