DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This is the Stanford Enclyclopedia page on "Truth":http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/Perhaps some brief comments on it might clarify things?
LBird wrote:This retreat by science from the position that it produces ‘The Truth’, a 100%-accurate copy in our minds of what is being ‘observed’, has really troubling implications.Now you've shifted the meaning of what you are referring to as "science". Previously we where talking about scientific knowledge, now you are talking about comentators on science or scientific institutions. This is important to notice as shifts in meaning during the course of an argument cause it to go off track.Did all scientist subscribe to niave realism to begin with? I don't think that is true. Look at early modern scientists or philosophers such as Descartes, Liebniz, Hume or Kant I don't think any of them can be fitted into this catergory. Sceptism (and the idea that the mind plays an acive role in perception) forms the base of how science has deveoped right from the beginning. Though I still think you haven't adequately explained what you would take to be sufficient grounds for calling one statement "true" and another "false". (Let's forget about capital T truth for now).
But to say that that "Scientific knowledge does not give us capital T truth therefore there is a problem with science" is an incomplete argument. You either need another premise before the "therefore" or to explain what that problem is..
LBird wrote:Since you accept 'truth' of the capital T kind doesn't exist, what about 'false' of the capital F kind? I'm not trying to 'catch you out', but perhaps one stance implies the other?Actually you can have something like the capital T kind of truth when it comes to A priori truths, things that are true by definition. Eg the truth of the phrase "All bachelors are unmarried" is determined by the meaning of the word "bachelor" not by going out in the world and checking that there are no bachelors with wives.A posteriori truths are the ones that are I guess more related to scientifc knowledge…No you don't need a capital F false because if something is false it is true that it is false. I suppose….
I still think you need to give a couple of sentences explaining what you mean by "true" though.Yes nothing can give us the Truth of the capital T kind, but that does not mean that all scientific knowledge is therefore false.
Lots of the issues are touched on here in bite sized pieces:https://explorable.com/foundations-of-science
Define what you mean by "true".But why start with Einstein? This stuff goes back to the ancient Greeks if not before.Yes I don't think anyone, especially working scientists, claims that science produces the "Truth" in the complete and final for all eternity sense of the term.
LBird wrote:They always try to reject criticism of their god (Materialism).And are you talking about materialism in the ontological or the epistemic sense?
LBird wrote:They always try to reject criticism of their god (Materialism).Well if you reject materialism or physicalism what's your take on it? Dualism, idealism some kind of pluralism or do you think the issue is metaphysical and therefore an none issue?
LBird wrote:Socialists Exposed to Engels Have Difficulty Distinguishing Marx From Materialism, Science FindsOne's a person the other is an asumption about the nature of what exists. Ta da!But what is Science?
LBird wrote:If someone wants, for example, to discuss the meaning of 'ideology', then let them start a thread about that issue.It does seem strange that "ideology" forms the cornerstone of you theory of science and epistemology and yet you do not want to discuss what you mean by it..
SocialistPunk wrote:Am I the only one here that thinks this thread is a little on the weird side? I’ve never come across a thread set up like this, specificaly aimed at a forum member.I have to agree with you here, it is a little strange choice of topic.
SocialistPunk wrote:Is this the SPGB version of the Spanish Inquisition?No, more like an argument clinic
