An Attack on Science

kennethamy wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

Scientists do not talk about 100% truth, only progress towards truth. Evidence is observed. Inferences are made. A hypothesis is proposed. Tests are designed. If the hypothesis fails any tests, it is either discarded or modified. If the hypothesis survives the tests, it is tentatively accepted.

You think that astronomers do not think it is true that Mars is the fourth planet, or that chemists do not think that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen? What astronomers and chemists have you been talking to?

Kenn... Truth is a moral form that we apply to social forms and physical forms... Do I think it true that Mars is the fourth planet??? I think it is true that Mars is the name we give to the Fourth nearest planet to the Sun... Is that what you mean; because there are not enough words in the dictionary to qualify every statement so it is true for all time as infinite truth would be... I am not trying to relativize anything... There are truths and there are lies, but a particular feature of all lies is that they contain some truth, and invariably the truth is not all true... Our world has a continuum of truth, and truth as a moral form is one of the virtues, so whether you say knowledge is virtue, or one of the virtues it is correct, relatively, true...

I know we have left tracks in this mud before; but no matter how many examples of truth you produce you do not define truth as an ideal, and a form... And that is what truth is, the best possible definition, is a moral form... It is an abstraction of our reality, the sort of spiritual milieu of consciousness we give meaning to because it has no specific being...

Wandel's quote is in fact correct - in its application to all scientific theories. As a very great physicist observed "All models are wrong, but some are useful." Did you think you knew what a light year is? Newton thought he knew, and his celestial mechanics are "true", but our understanding has evolved since then; this is a related thread on this forum: http://able2know.org/topic/135659-3#post-4357719

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

Scientists do not talk about 100% truth, only progress towards truth. Evidence is observed. Inferences are made. A hypothesis is proposed. Tests are designed. If the hypothesis fails any tests, it is either discarded or modified. If the hypothesis survives the tests, it is tentatively accepted.

You think that astronomers do not think it is true that Mars is the fourth planet, or that chemists do not think that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen? What astronomers and chemists have you been talking to?

Kenn... Truth is a moral form that we apply to social forms and physical forms... Do I think it true that Mars is the fourth planet??? I think it is true that Mars is the name we give to the Fourth nearest planet to the Sun... Is that what you mean; because there are not enough words in the dictionary to qualify every statement so it is true for all time as infinite truth would be... I am not trying to relativize anything... There are truths and there are lies, but a particular feature of all lies is that they contain some truth, and invariably the truth is not all true... Our world has a continuum of truth, and truth as a moral form is one of the virtues, so whether you say knowledge is virtue, or one of the virtues it is correct, relatively, true...

I know we have left tracks in this mud before; but no matter how many examples of truth you produce you do not define truth as an ideal, and a form... And that is what truth is, the best possible definition, is a moral form... It is an abstraction of our reality, the sort of spiritual milieu of consciousness we give meaning to because it has no specific being...

Do I think it true that Mars is the fourth planet??? I think it is true that Mars is the name we give to the Fourth nearest planet to the Sun... Is that what you mean;

Of course that is not what I mean. I mean that planet which we happen to give the name "Mars" but which we might just as well have called "Jupiter" or "Mickey Mouse" for that matter, is the fourth planet from the Sun. What on earth would lead you to believe that what I meant had anything at all to do with what that planet happened to be called?

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

Scientists do not talk about 100% truth, only progress towards truth. Evidence is observed. Inferences are made. A hypothesis is proposed. Tests are designed. If the hypothesis fails any tests, it is either discarded or modified. If the hypothesis survives the tests, it is tentatively accepted.

You think that astronomers do not think it is true that Mars is the fourth planet, or that chemists do not think that water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen? What astronomers and chemists have you been talking to?

Kenn... Truth is a moral form that we apply to social forms and physical forms... Do I think it true that Mars is the fourth planet??? I think it is true that Mars is the name we give to the Fourth nearest planet to the Sun... Is that what you mean; because there are not enough words in the dictionary to qualify every statement so it is true for all time as infinite truth would be... I am not trying to relativize anything... There are truths and there are lies, but a particular feature of all lies is that they contain some truth, and invariably the truth is not all true... Our world has a continuum of truth, and truth as a moral form is one of the virtues, so whether you say knowledge is virtue, or one of the virtues it is correct, relatively, true...

I know we have left tracks in this mud before; but no matter how many examples of truth you produce you do not define truth as an ideal, and a form... And that is what truth is, the best possible definition, is a moral form... It is an abstraction of our reality, the sort of spiritual milieu of consciousness we give meaning to because it has no specific being...

Do I think it true that Mars is the fourth planet??? I think it is true that Mars is the name we give to the Fourth nearest planet to the Sun... Is that what you mean;

Of course that is not what I mean. I mean that planet which we happen to give the name "Mars" but which we might just as well have called "Jupiter" or "Mickey Mouse" for that matter, is the fourth planet from the Sun. What on earth would lead you to believe that what I meant had anything at all to do with what that planet happened to be called?

Isn't some part of the truth what you tell, or communicate... Other people had different names for Mars, so to tell a truth in your language may be to tell a lie in theirs, and I do not know that Mars was not the personification of the God, Mars whose planet considered as a star was thought to govern war and bloodshed... So, was the god the planet/star, was the star/planet his property; or was his spirit identical to, that is, identified the planet...

It is some times difficult to grasp the primitive psychology... The Pantheon was filled with captured representations of gods which to their former and later owners were synonymous, or more properly, indentical to their God... If you captured their god, you captured the people... It is almost childlike, as though a grocery store santa we Santa himself, and real as well... So you tell me what Mars is and was, and I will tell you the relation of the planet to the Word...If you could grasp truth as a moral form I think you would stop with the dumb examples of truth... You think you are hitting the target but you are shooting the breeze...

Alright, let me try this again... We identify a thing with its name, and its name with its concept... Are you with me so far??? So is the concept the thing, or is the concept of the thing only the concept of the thing??? Is the name the thing, or only what we call the thing... I realize we are in the habit of referring to the thing by its concept or name, but in this instance both the concept and the name point to other objects... Anyone can tell a lie... Fiction may be the only way to tell a truth if the truth can be approached by allagory...Telling the truth is difficult, and your choice of an example of an object having many names, and the name/concept pointing to different objects is terrible, but about par for your course... Better luck next time...

You guys are all saying yes it's relaible but you are ignoring the fact that one can make the same observation and arrive at a different conclusion or better we can doubt the observation all together due to sensory organs.

Actually, telling a lie is more difficult than telling the truth. Liars must have good memories, and most do not.

Fido wrote:

Alright, let me try this again... We identify a thing with its name, and its name with its concept... Are you with me so far??? So is the concept the thing, or is the concept of the thing only the concept of the thing??? Is the name the thing, or only what we call the thing... I realize we are in the habit of referring to the thing by its concept or name, but in this instance both the concept and the name point to other objects... Anyone can tell a lie... Fiction may be the only way to tell a truth if the truth can be approached by allagory...Telling the truth is difficult, and your choice of an example of an object having many names, and the name/concept pointing to different objects is terrible, but about par for your course... Better luck next time...

The name of something is not that something. Mars is a planet. The word "Mars" is not a planet.

Too many responses, and everyone is going away from the main question and that is questioning inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.

I don't care what science is about, I'm more interested in how it gets it's "knowledge" the method it acquires it is the scientific method which is rooted in inductive reasoning.

You guys are all saying yes it's relaible but you are ignoring the fact that one can make the same observation and arrive at a different conclusion or better we can doubt the observation all together due to sensory organs.

i) How can we know that it's we who are orbiting the sun and no the other way around. See this is a clear that there is conflict between our perception and our reason. Obviously we would conclude Reason > Percetption i.e Rationalist > Empiricist... But there is still another attack on both side, Whilst both assume the universe EXIST.. This is the crucial point, How do we know it exists.. this is the first thing Science takes for granted or assumes it exists...

We need to assume certain things before we can come to certain conclusion eg b-b = 0 produces why multiple of 2 negative numbers give a positive number. My attack on this is HOW DO WE KNOW b-b=0 even tho it's blindly obvious that it is. WHAT IF it's NOT! and How do we know that it's true? Is intution good enough? Is common sense good enough?

Think guys!

Same thing applies with science, how can we say with confidence that yesterday the sun rose and set?

The fact is at best science arrives at an approximation of what ever the case maybe, does not make it the case it is true!

Ignore Science, think of the method it arrives at certain knowledge.

My statement still applies. It doesn't matter how "you" juggle words.