Does Science Reveal Truth?

What is truth?

It's a pretty popular question, apparently going back several thousand years. And over the centuries and millennia many people have tried to seek out the truth. Or reveal it. Or grapple with the truth. Or wrestle with it. Or at the very least come to terms with it.

And while science is a powerful force in understanding the way the world works, it is not truth.

To draw the distinction, there are facts. There are things we observe about the world around us. We observe the shifting of light from distant galaxies. We observe the mutations over generations in DNA. We can see chemicals combine and interact.

But science (https://docsbay.net/science-programmes-of-study-key-stages-1-and-2) itself isn't just a collection of facts about the natural world. That's only part of the story. The bigger part of the story is what we do with those facts. And what we do is try to interpret them and understand them, and fold them into a larger picture that we can use to make predictions about the behavior of those same systems in the natural world.

And all our models and theories are representations and approximations of reality as we see it. That is not truth.

The biggest giveaway is that scientific theories change with time. As we acquire new information or new data, we have to update all of our beliefs. And how can a belief be true if it is subject to change at a moment's notice?

@rohangarg said

And while science is a powerful force in understanding the way the world works, it is not truth.

Scientific method is a way of obtaining the truth as opposed to being the truth and I am not aware of anyone who thinks and/or claims the contrary.
Unless we are either in the matrix or all in cuckoo land complete with tooth fairies, almost certainly all scientific facts represent the truth or at least a good enough approximation of the truth.

The bigger part of the story is what we do with those facts.

How we USE facts isn't what we mean by 'truth'.
If an evil man nukes and kills millions of innocent people, that doesn't make what we think we know about nuclear physics false.

The biggest giveaway is that scientific theories change with time. As we acquire new information or new data, we have to update all of our beliefs. And how can a belief be true if it is subject to change at a moment's notice?

Because science eventually arrives as the truth and then all further evidence just confirms that truth until it reaches a point where we can say it is 'fact' because the evidence because so vast and mountainous that anyone who knows it would be insane to think it could credibly be all false.

And all our models and theories are representations and approximations of reality as we see it. That is not truth.

But it can be a near enough approximation to the truth. If we measure the speed of light c to within 99.999% accuracy, the 0.001% inaccuracy is arbitrarily small and we still have a very good idea what c is so not much reason to complain there.

@rohangarg said
What is truth?

It's a pretty popular question, apparently going back several thousand years. And over the centuries and millennia many people have tried to seek out the truth. Or reveal it. Or grapple with the truth. Or wrestle with it. Or at the very least come to terms with it.

And while science is a powerful force in understanding the way the world works, it is not ...[text shortened]... te all of our beliefs. And how can a belief be true if it is subject to change at a moment's notice?

Truth is the way things are. Not everybody believes the truth though. Some people believe fallacies and it isn't possible to always know the truth. I don't know why matter causes time dilation. I have a theory, but I don't know it is the truth. I could be wrong.

Scientists have theories and that is not truth until confirmed. Some scientists are biased in favor of one theory over another. Scientists can be dogmatic and stubborn just like any other people. They engage in "group think" just like what happens in politics and religion.

People are human and often mistake truth with faith. A theory is an educated guess. When scientists lose sight of that it turns into faith. People with faith are a stubborn lot. It is hard to reason with them.

Like truth, science is just a perception to some people. What is considered true to some people now might not be considered true or entirely true in the future. The same thing applies to science. Newton's calculus was considered truth until Einstein modified it to be more true. Not everyone was so accepting of this at first.

It is important for people to be open minded and accepting of new ideas. Unfortunately, scientists are human too. They can be just as biased and prejudiced as the rest of the population.

@metal-brain said

A theory is an educated guess. When scientists lose sight of that it turns into faith.

From your previous posts I deduce the above "educated guess" often means "assuming the scientific facts are true that metal-brain believes they are false because he wants to believe they are false" and the above "faith" always means "believing those scientific facts metal-brain believes are false because he wants to believe they are false".

And a scientific theory need not be just an 'educated guess' but rationally based on good evidence and/or logic and proven to be true. Example; relativity.

It is important for people to be open minded and accepting of new ideas

-excluding moronic ideas and your stupid ignorant 'theories'. And not just 'ideas' but more importantly including facts and including those facts you don't like. I accept MANY scientific facts I don't like. I do not WANT man made global warming to be true etc. So why don't you be open minded short of allowing your brain to drop out? WOW what a hypocrite you are!

@humy said
Scientific method is a way of obtaining the truth as opposed to being the truth and I am not aware of anyone who thinks and/or claims the contrary.
Unless we are either in the matrix or all in cuckoo land complete with tooth fairies, almost certainly all scientific facts represent the truth or at least a good enough approximation of the truth.

[quote] The bigger part of the ...[text shortened]... arbitrarily small and we still have a very good idea what c is so not much reason to complain there.

my above misedit
"...because the evidence because so vast and mountainous ..."
should be;
"...because the evidence becomes so vast and mountainous ..."

A theory is not evidence, it is an educated guess that may or may not be true. Facts are not necessarily evidence either. There are lots of facts that do not conclude anything for certain.

Humy wants to believe in certain unconfirmed theories so badly he has resorted to faith. He doesn't like being reminded that global warming theory is merely theory and not evidence. It is a threat to his faith.

Humy has failed so many times to prove man is the main cause of global warming he resents me for it. If humy was logical he would accept peer reviewed articles from respected science journals instead of gossip. He has had countless opportunities to prove his assertions with sea level rise and he has failed every time. Despite his long list of failures he still has faith.

@metal-brain said
A theory is not evidence,

Who said it was? Not me. I see you try the usual straw mans.
I have given you the DATA, not 'theory', that proved you wrong and an idiot.

it is an educated guess that may or may not be true.

Not if its a proven scientific fact. Is it just a 'guess' that the Earth is round and not flat? Don't be silly.

@metal-brain said
A theory is not evidence, it is an educated guess that may or may not be true. Facts are not necessarily evidence either. There are lots of facts that do not conclude anything for certain.

Humy wants to believe in certain unconfirmed theories so badly he has resorted to faith. He doesn't like being reminded that global warming theory is merely theory and not evidence. ...[text shortened]... h sea level rise and he has failed every time. Despite his long list of failures he still has faith.

Scientific theories are well-substantiated by multiple lines of conclusive evidence. Theories are not and never have been faith-based. Scientific facts don't exist, since all observations are influenced by the assumptions used to measure them.

Per the definition from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences "... a scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment."

@humy said
Who said it was? Not me. I see you try the usual straw mans.
I have given you the DATA, not 'theory', that proved you wrong and an idiot.

it is an educated guess that may or may not be true.

Not if its a proven scientific fact. Is it just a 'guess' that the Earth is round and not flat? Don't be silly.

Keep in mind that the idea of a geocentric solar system was a fact for over a thousand years.

@wildgrass
Sure, based on very limited scientific knowledge and scientific method ATT. And it was not believed totally worldwide. It was already shown Earth was round 3000 years ago by a guy with a couple of sticks.

@wildgrass said
Keep in mind that the idea of a geocentric solar system was a fact for over a thousand years.

I don't believe it was ever a 'fact', at least not a 'scientific fact', because it was never proven.

@humy said
I don't believe it was ever a 'fact', at least not a 'scientific fact', because it was never proven.

Scientists were in general agreement with the geocentric model. For well over 80 generations.

Like I said in the earlier post, scientific facts don't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

@wildgrass said
Scientific theories are well-substantiated by multiple lines of conclusive evidence. Theories are not and never have been faith-based. Scientific facts don't exist, since all observations are influenced by the assumptions used to measure them.

Per the definition from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences "... a scientific theory is an explanation of an aspe ...[text shortened]... ation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment."

Scientific theories are theory, not fact. Realistic people view them as possibilities rather than evidence. Scientific facts exist, but not everybody agrees on the scientific facts.

Science is often perceived to be the gateway to truth, but there is no evidence that is the case all the time. Humy claims his opinion of science is truth even though there is no evidence to support that. One man's science is another man's opinion.

@metal-brain said
Scientific theories are theory, not fact.

So the scientific theory of round Earth is not a proven fact and you are either a flat-earther or at least a round-earth skeptic. Got it.

What if a scientific theory is proven? Like the theory of relativity?
Explain to us how, despite the evidence, the theory of relativity is still NOT also a proven scientific fact?

Scientific facts exist, but not everybody agrees on the scientific facts.

Not everyone agrees WITH the scientific facts and that is because there are many morons like yourself that believe whatever they want to be true and if they don't like the proven scientific facts then they simply choose not to believe them.

@wildgrass said
Scientists were in general agreement with the geocentric model.

That is not what defines what is a scientific fact.
A scientific fact isn't defined as whatever the majority of scientists believe is true but rather what is shown to be almost certainly true by the evidence with such an arbitrary low credibility of it being false that we can for all practical purposes just say its proven true.
If, hypothetically, all scientists believed there exists ghosts and there is no evidence of ghosts then its still not a scientific fact that there are ghosts.

Like I said in the earlier post, scientific facts don't exist.

What do you mean? Isn't it a scientific fact that plants photosynthesis? If not, how are you defining what is a "scientific fact"? I, just like most people, just define scientific fact as a scientific theory proven (or close-enough proven without being massively and moronically semantically pedantic) true by the evidence. I am unaware of any other possible definition or meaning commonly used.