Does Science Reveal Truth?

@wildgrass said
Then why did you bring it up?

Because just because something is called a theory does not make it a real scientific theory. How the heck are scientists and people in general supposed to know what the truth is when something is labeled a theory that isn't a theory?

Scientists need to label things properly instead of misleading people. It is a hypothesis, not a theory. How can science claim it represents truth when these mistakes are not corrected?

Global warming theory (anthropogenic) is not a theory either. It is an hypothesis.

@metal-brain said
Because just because something is called a theory does not make it a real scientific theory. How the heck are scientists and people in general supposed to know what the truth is when something is labeled a theory that isn't a theory?

Scientists need to label things properly instead of misleading people. It is a hypothesis, not a theory. How can science claim it represe ...[text shortened]... not corrected?

Global warming theory (anthropogenic) is not a theory either. It is an hypothesis.

I think you're still confusing what is and isn't theory, not the scientists. If you collect all the existing data and evidence in a given broad field of science, what is the most rational explanation for what you are observing? That's the theory. I have not seen anthropogenic global warming presented anywhere as a theory in scientific literature. Rather, the theory relates to the 'greenhouse effect'. Forcings like CO2 emissions and land (mis)use are anthropogenic, but they are merely inputs into an intricate system.

Circling back to the OP, it is true that humans are causing climate change.

Assuming we're going with Popper then Scientific theories are not proven, they are disproven. So it is true that the Earth is not at the centre of the Solar System. All theories are provisional.

Having said that, the following sentence makes sense: "The Standard Model correctly predicts the results of collider experiments up to the TeV scale.". Since we expect the Standard Model and Quantum Field Theories to be approximations, then I think it is reasonable enough to make a truth claim about them. However, this is not a claim of ultimate truth. It's a claim that it is true that the theory is a good approximation to the truth.

Bear in mind that philosophers are still arguing over what we mean when we say something is true. There are two major positions. One is the coherence theory of truth, which says something along the lines of: "A proposition is true if it fits with everything else we know about the world.". The other is the correspondence theory of truth. "A proposition such as 'The cat sat on the mat' if there was indeed a cat, which was sitting on the specific mat in question.", in other words if there's a faithful mapping between the statement and the world. This is discussed well at the Stanford Philosophy site [1]. The word true is a loan word from carpentry. If an upright is true then it's vertical and can be relied upon to support whatever one's building. If it is not true then it cannot be relied upon. So the truth is what one can rely on.

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/
There are nine more specific articles there as well on the various theories of truth.

@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?

I believe in truth and unlike many things people push it isn't going to contradict itself, neither will it alter itself over time, if something is true it will be true for everyone at all times, in every place, it is the way it is. Truth will always be confirmed more is learned about it, which also means if we always have to alter what we think is true about a topic than it shows we don't know, and our methods are not an accurate means of discovery so far.

@kellyjay said
I believe in truth

EVERYONE believes IN truth! But what you believe IS THE truth may not be; Especially if its faith-based.

@wildgrass said
I think you're still confusing what is and isn't theory, not the scientists. If you collect all the existing data and evidence in a given broad field of science, what is the most rational explanation for what you are observing? That's the theory. I have not seen anthropogenic global warming presented anywhere as a theory in scientific literature. Rather, the theory relates ...[text shortened]... an intricate system.

Circling back to the OP, it is true that humans are causing climate change.

What is the most rational explanation isn't truth claim, it is the latest explanation, which doesn't have to be true to be a rational explanation.

@kellyjay said
What is the most rational explanation

...is probably the truth, or at the very least is the most likely one to be the truth out of all other alternative explanations, simply because it IS the most rational explanation.
In contrast, an irrational explanation, especially if it is without some sort of premise or evidence, is probably false because its an irrational explanation. Example; Goddidit.

@wildgrass said
I think you're still confusing what is and isn't theory, not the scientists. If you collect all the existing data and evidence in a given broad field of science, what is the most rational explanation for what you are observing? That's the theory. I have not seen anthropogenic global warming presented anywhere as a theory in scientific literature. Rather, the theory relates ...[text shortened]... an intricate system.

Circling back to the OP, it is true that humans are causing climate change.

No, I think you are confused.

String theory is not a theory. How can science adequately represent truth when they cannot even use proper terms to describe things? It should be called string hypothesis.

Global warming theory is not a theory. It is a hypothesis as well. It was also improperly labeled to give it more perceived credibility than it has.

Collecting data doesn't not mean the data is valid. The heat island effect is not valid data. When alarmists cherry pick that data they are being dishonest and hiding the truth.

There is no proof humans are the main cause of GW. I proved that was a myth with sea level rise data.

@metal-brain said
No, I think you are confused.

String theory is not a theory. How can science adequately represent truth when they cannot even use proper terms to describe things? It should be called string hypothesis.

Global warming theory is not a theory. It is a hypothesis as well. It was also improperly labeled to give it more perceived credibility than it has.

Collecting da ...[text shortened]... here is no proof humans are the main cause of GW. I proved that was a myth with sea level rise data.

You seem to be asserting that not all theories are thoroughly validated while pointing at things that aren't even theories? Certainly global warming is not a scientific theory. I tried to google it and got pages of results about non-scientific conspiracy theories. Read what deepthought wrote about QFT. He's much more knowledgeable that I am.

'Greenhouse' theory is what you're looking for on the climate change side of things, since it explains global warming. 'Global warming' in and of itself doesn't explain anything beyond what we already know from thermodynamics, so it wouldn't be an effective (or valid) theory. There are still problems with it, but greenhouse theory is still the most rational explanation for global warming, supported by evidence across many scientific disciplines.

@humy said
...is probably the truth, or at the very least is the most likely one to be the truth out of all other alternative explanations, simply because it IS the most rational explanation.
In contrast, an irrational explanation, especially if it is without some sort of premise or evidence, is probably false because its an irrational explanation. Example; Goddidit.

With respect, you don't have an alterative to God did it for the universe being here.
Matter, energy, and time all started at some point, you cannot say nothing did it, because out of nothing only comes nothing, its dated so it has a beginning.

@humy said
EVERYONE believes IN truth! But what you believe IS THE truth may not be; Especially if its faith-based.

All truth is based upon something, its reference point, so yes depending on what the topic is somethings can be truth other false. Faith has nothing to do with that, what is, is, or is not.

@rohangarg
Science is true because it always comes with caveats.

For instance Einstein's General Theory of Relativity we know is not absolutely true.
But it's good enough to calculate compensations for GPS satellites.

@metal-brain said
No, I think you are confused.

You are confused about the word "theory".
Unfortunately polysemy plagues many debates
with two sides using a different definition.

"Theory" is a homonym with at least 3 and perhaps 6 meanings.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory (gives 6)

The two important ones for this thread are:
1. A hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument
or an unproved assumption (conjecture).
eg. My theory is you do not know what you are talking about.

2. A scientifically accepted body of principles
which explains certain phenomena.
eg Theory of Evolution

@wolfgang59 said
You are confused about the word "theory".
Unfortunately polysemy plagues many debates
with two sides using a different definition.

"Theory" is a homonym with at least 3 and perhaps 6 meanings.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory (gives 6)

The two important ones for this thread are:
1. A hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument
or an unproved ...[text shortened]... ally accepted body of principles
which explains certain phenomena.
eg Theory of Evolution

We would really be in trouble if the word 'polysemy' had multiple definitions.

@wildgrass said
You seem to be asserting that not all theories are thoroughly validated while pointing at things that aren't even theories? Certainly global warming is not a scientific theory. I tried to google it and got pages of results about non-scientific conspiracy theories. Read what deepthought wrote about QFT. He's much more knowledgeable that I am.

'Greenhouse' theory is what y ...[text shortened]... t rational explanation for global warming, supported by evidence across many scientific disciplines.

Global warming hypothesis is not a theory. The assertion that man is the main cause of GW is false. I have never even heard of greenhouse theory. Did you make it up?