Does Science Reveal Truth?

@metal-brain said
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.

These points are meaningless. Look up the definition of a scientific theory. Theories are built on a mountain of evidence, and you can't wave your hand and say it's just a possibility because that's your opinion of the theory. If you don't like a theory the burden of proof is on you to tear it apart with new evidence, brick by brick. Just like Copernicus and Kepler did with the geocentric model. And you'd like scientific evidence that science is the gateway to the truth? What would something like that look like?

Scientific facts don't exist, and there is no such thing as scientific proof either. Proof implies there's no room for error. But truth does exist, at least as it's defined to be "in accordance with reality". As opposed to facts and proofs, truth is malleable and time-bound. Geocentrism was true for a long time, even though it was completely wrong. Scientists mold data in models for how they think the system is operating, but those models usually evolve over time as they become increasingly detailed.

One man's science is another man's opinion? That's meaningless too. Could you imagine saying that to a scientist presenting his research during a lecture? Well that's just your opinion? No. What specifically is wrong with his conclusion and how would you interpret those results differently?

@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?

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?

The models and theories are representations of what we know to be true now. But the truth doesn't have to be static. Thus, even though most scientific models end up being wrong in some way, they are still true.

@wildgrass said

Proof implies there's no room for error.

Not in science. Not for SCIENTIFIC proof, not to be confused with MATHEMATICAL proof. The meaning of scientific proof DOES and MUST allow for the possibility of falsity PROVIDING it is SO improbable that its false that it isn't CREDIBLE that it is false. Example; Green plants photosynthesis. Yes it isn't like a MATHEMATICAL proof; perhaps we live in the matrix or all the evidence was made up in a world wide conspiracy to make us have the false belief in photosynthesis, etc. But we still say that its a "scientific fact" because those other possibilities are just not credible and its just not credible that there is no photosynthesis.

I agree with your first part of your post but you are wrong about this part.

@humy said
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 ther ...[text shortened]... antic) true by the evidence. I am unaware of any other possible definition or meaning commonly used.

Almost certainly true is not the definition of a fact. Maybe you're thinking of a theory? I would define fact as an irrefutable truth, but those do not exist within the realm of science since there is always some wiggle room for doubt based on the limitations of experimental design, measurement and observation. Truth is a moving target. Yes, plants use photons to build molecules, but details have changed in our lifetimes, and it's likely that several pieces of the current model of photosynthesis are wrong. We're still trying to figure out how to correctly observe photons. There are no scientific facts. Outside of maths maybe, science can't really irrefutably prove anything about reality but it can amass more evidence.

@humy said
Not in science. Not for SCIENTIFIC proof, not to be confused with MATHEMATICAL proof. The meaning of scientific proof DOES and MUST allow for the possibility of falsity PROVIDING it is SO improbable that its false that it isn't CREDIBLE that it is false. Example; Green plants photosynthesis. Yes it isn't like a MATHEMATICAL proof; perhaps we live in the matrix or all the evidenc ...[text shortened]... s no photosynthesis.

I agree with your first part of your post but you are wrong about this part.

I don't think it's fair to argue that we've proven photosynthesis (to say that photosynthesis might not exist at all is besides the point) because it might work differently than the current models indicate and there are lots of unknowns remaining.

edit: I'm referring to proof as evidence that establishes a fact, which does not leave room for probabilities.

@wildgrass said
Almost certainly true is not the definition of a fact.

Are you talking here about mathematical or scientific fact? If the latter; It is what most people, including scientists, MEAN by 'scientific fact'. So it IS the definition of a scientific fact.

and it's likely that several pieces of the current model of photosynthesis are wrong.

I am referring to the essence of the theory and not the more trivial details such as its exact rate and exact enzyme formulas involved etc that can be false and the basic theory still be true. Understanding of the trivial details of a scientific theory may change in time (as often has in the past as I can think of a number of examples of that) but the proven scientific theory will still remain a scientific fact. For example, evolution is still a fact even though some of its assumed details have now changed (such as; it was originally thought it occurred at a constant rate but now we know that's false; but the essence of the theory of evolution is still correct)

@wildgrass said

I'm referring to proof as evidence that establishes a fact, which does not leave room for probabilities.

then you are not referring to what is meant by scientific fact but rather mathematical fact, which isn't the same thing at all.

@humy
"
"modern science" is not objective truth. it is about "social science".

@humy said
then you are not referring to what is meant by scientific fact but rather mathematical fact, which isn't the same thing at all.

It sounds like you're saying that, in science, facts do not occur by the general definition (since we don't ever prove anything) therefore we need to alter the meaning of the word to continue using it. Perhaps you and I could agree that facts are subject to change over time when we are discussing science, but that is not a common definition. Other terms can be used, like 'observation' or 'evidence' if that's what you mean.

I think it is important that scientists do not pretend to dabble in absolute facts. If science is understood to be all about fact-finding and unequivocally proving things, the expectation is that facts will continue to be facts even after new conflicting evidence ultimately emerges. Critics with agendas will point out that theories and models are sometimes inaccurate or outright wrong, therefore we can't trust anything those scientists say anymore. Why do they keep updating their models? Don't they trust their own facts? This is obviously completely missing the function of science as an approach.

Imagine you're taking a true-false test in the 1400s. You write down TRUE to the statement that "The earth is the center of the solar system". And you would be right. It was true but it was not a fact.

Here is an article written by a scientist on the subject:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/im-a-scientist-and-i-dont-believe-in-facts/

@wildgrass said
These points are meaningless. Look up the definition of a scientific theory. Theories are built on a mountain of evidence, and you can't wave your hand and say it's just a possibility because that's your opinion of the theory. If you don't like a theory the burden of proof is on you to tear it apart with new evidence, brick by brick. Just like Copernicus and Kepler did with ...[text shortened]... hat specifically is wrong with his conclusion and how would you interpret those results differently?

"Look up the definition of a scientific theory. Theories are built on a mountain of evidence, and you can't wave your hand and say it's just a possibility because that's your opinion of the theory."

Not all theories are built on a mountain of evidence. That is simply false. I suggest you look up the definition of a scientific theory.

Is string theory built on a mountain of evidence? Not at all.

@metal-brain said
"Look up the definition of a scientific theory. Theories are built on a mountain of evidence, and you can't wave your hand and say it's just a possibility because that's your opinion of the theory."

Not all theories are built on a mountain of evidence. That is simply false. I suggest you look up the definition of a scientific theory.

Is string theory built on a mountain of evidence? Not at all.

My very limited understanding is that string theory is a mathematical model of quantum field theory? That's the mountain. But it only works in 10 dimensions and not 4. Since there are no workable alternatives at this time, it has stuck around.

Here's the definition since you couldn't bother:

Scientific theory - a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

@wildgrass said
My very limited understanding is that string theory is a mathematical model of quantum field theory? That's the mountain. But it only works in 10 dimensions and not 4. Since there are no workable alternatives at this time, it has stuck around.

Here's the definition since you couldn't bother:

Scientific theory - a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

You are wrong. String theory is not supported by a vast body of evidence. It is impossible to prove.

String theory does not meet your own definition of a scientific theory. Either it is not a real theory or your definition is incorrect.

@metal-brain said
You are wrong. String theory is not supported by a vast body of evidence. It is impossible to prove.

String theory does not meet your own definition of a scientific theory. Either it is not a real theory or your definition is incorrect.

I don't know that it's a theory at all. That's why I put the question mark at the end of that sentence. Don't leave it hanging. Isn't it a part of quantum field theory?

p.s. why bring it up as a theory if you don't think its a theory at all?

@wildgrass said
That's why I put the question mark at the end of that sentence. Don't leave it hanging. Isn't it a part of quantum field theory?

p.s. why would you bring it up as a theory if it's not a theory at all?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/23/why-string-theory-is-not-science/#1a88e5646524

@metal-brain said
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/23/why-string-theory-is-not-science/#1a88e5646524

Then why did you bring it up?