From a christian perspective one sees Pilate encounter Jesus for the first time, he asks ďwhat is veritas?Ē and Jesus walks away.
The definition of truth from the oxford dictionary:
ē noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state of being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to false. 3 a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
Again truth is all about perspective, a common acceptance based on quality of the information and the personal judgement of the information.
Do you want to know if there is an absolute truth?
The absolute truth concerns nature. The real world. The truth describes events occuring in nature, either physical, chemical, personal or supernatural. Science determines the truth by inquiring into relationships and developing theories and laws to best fit those relationships. Religion does the exact same. religion observes nature and applies itís own theories and laws to best fit the natural world. Science needs abstract mathematics to explain those theories, religion needs God. Constraints are applied to nature, like limits, values and laws. Mathematics and God understand infinity, but the natural world is bound by those limits, values and laws.
Secondly, our perspective of truth:
The perspective of that truth in nature is based on the available information and our own belief system.
Our own belief system:
Scientific data is probably the highest quality of data that is available. Logical and reasoning people will agree with scientific statements. High quality data and like-mindedness lead to acceptance and agreement of the statement. Religious teachings are often accepted as high quality data because of itís Godly Status. If we consider it high quality information we consider it truth. we have a defined set of beliefs determined by culture, personal experience, society, family etc. Some people accept blind faith in God as acceptable where others refuse blind faith. This paradigm biases our judgement and perspective. Logical people will accept logical before faith based statements. Faithful believers place their faith before human logic. That is, the logical person sees logic as a perfect system, whereas the believer sees the faith as the perfect system. If they disagree then they state the other as flawed by human nature.
The amount of information available depends on communication. Communication grants us access to more information, including the media and community. Increasing knowledge increases our perspective of the absolute truth. Information from the media can be either good quality or poor quality. Tabloids manipulate the truth quite often for more sensational headlines. If you surround yourself with tabloids and no other sources of information you will develop biased and false perspectives and opinions on the subject. ďofficialĒ news reports tend to speak the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Again, the news can only speak its version of the truth based on available information. If the truth is not accessible by confidentiality, then we will not have that enough informaiton to make a clear perspective of the truth.
If you want to know the whole truth, you need to obtain the best quality information sources, like news reports, scientific journals etc, and you need to develop a mentality that best suits your judgement method.
I'm sure you have said that before (or someone has for sure - I remember answering this point previously)...anyway, once again:
Science has theories, hypothesis and .....nothing. There is no concept or use of term like 'truth' and Ďcorrectí because obviously scientists are well aware of the fundamental 'The Map Is Not The Territory' nature of the whole endeavour of science.
Science models physical reality using math as the main language and scientific method, observation and experiment to test models to see if they can be made to fail. If it survives peer-review (at which point we can say it is moving from a hypothesis to a theory), then it will be published in the professional peer-reviewed Journals of that field and the other scientists in the field will check it out and see what they think.
After a bit of discussion and a few conferences o, arguments, rarely but occasionally even emotional and argument and rarely but occasionally ego and personality get too involved and a scientist forgets the rules and starts supporting his theory beyond the point which is valid to do so. It is rare though (the scientist should never be too close or attached to a theory. Don't look at a map of Cumbria, go and look at Cumbria itself which is far more than just the features on the mp. Anyway a consensus is arrived at and the new theory becomes the standard theory which means it is the currently accepted model and regarded to be the best explanation at the moment.
Now that might sound like it's not so different from what you say, but it is.
When was the last time you can recall a scientific theory being disproved?
Ahh...surely Newton was disproved by Einstein? Well, only in a very limited way. If you want to calculate any distance/time/speed type problems today then where do you turn? Relativity? No, you use Newton because IT WORKS.
Science generally works in this way. Einstein is a better theory because it predicts everything that Newton does, but also predicts some important other stuff at really high speeds which Newtonian mechanics would get the wrong answer for and gives us a model of the universe which opens up new questions which we can ask and test with experiments. It widens the scope of the model and makes the map more accurate and more detailed.
The old theory has not been disproved in the sense of being wrong, or vary rarely anyway. It is better to think of it being incorporated into a better theory that tells us more and works across a greater range of possibilities.
There should be no confusion that 'theory' somehow implies or even suggests that the information is somehow a bit iffy or likely to be wrong. Rather the opposite.
Newton is still good theory and easier to learn than Einstein and the answers it gave before relativity are not suddenly wrong.
It is true that a scientist would never claim that current theory represents 'truth' or 'the way the world really is', because they know fine well it is no such thing.
The model will be a good one though, even if it gets replaced one day. And you can be pretty certain that the answers it gives today are still going to work after the next change because it will gave been given a good kicking by a lot of people trying to refute it already.
This wordplay is frequently used to try and portray science as a post-modern system of valueless relativist knowl4edge that will one day prove silly and pathetically wrong.
I'm here to say that is not even close to the case. A reasonable definition of the word theory as it applies in science would be :
Anyway...can you think of a theory that has been disproved in the way suggested - ie gave wrong answers?
I think therefor I am
Very good point, Chris. Note that I was quoting the source there, and I pointed out later on that we are merely redefining our idea closer to the truth. Think of a thesis, an antithesis, and a hypothesis. The thesis makes a statement, the antithesis finds arguement with the thesis, and the conclusion is the hypothesis. In this regard science develops it's theories over time, using arguement, logical deduction etc. So Science uses resourcing to develop the theory. The more information available, the closer our perspective of the true nature.
For Newton Vs Einstein the thesis was Newton's classical physics, the antithesis was the unexplainable phenomena like photo-radiation effects. Einstein provided the hypothesis. In this regard, using logic and arguement science has revised its theories to better reflect the true nature. The hypothesis and thesis do not conflict, it merely resolves the antithesis and thesis as one complete theory. So in this regard, Einstein did not conflict with Newton, Einstein reconciled Newton's work with new unexplainable phenomena.
I have been seeking the truth of religion for years now, I began years ago by trying to prove God's existence. I said "light = love". Light has infinite values, leads to life etc. Light is pure energy. I tried to say that light that enlightens us is love, including inspiration, sexual love and supernatural love. Of course my own 1st year thesis was bizarre and random. love is supernatural and light is natural (realm of physics). I found my antithesis by finding faults in my thesis.
By arguement and by resourcing I find an Intelligent design. This was my hypothesis to solve both my thesis (light = love) and antithesis (God is purely supernatural). By research and by communication I find a larger picture of the universe and nature. My perspective of the truth changes.
Then this year I've been argueing against the supernatural. I find conflict between scientific principle (purely natural) and religion (supernatural influence). My hypothesis is that science has the better quality of data than religion, and hence religion must be in error. To support this hypothesis I revised many supernatural phenomena and found natural explanations for most of them. This is evidence that the supernatural doesn't exist and science holds true while religion is fabricated. Thus my picture of true nature becomes much clearer. By resourcing (communication) and by redefining my belief system, I can redefine my perspective of truth.
I can't imagine Descartes exists anymore now that he is dead.
If your under the impression that truth does not exist, or that it is relative, consider this. What about lying? Do you like to be lied to, or have the truth withheld? It's an uneasy feeling isn't it, especially if the withholding of certain fact cheats you out of a fair deal.
My girlfriend told me something really interesting once. "There is no such thing as honest people, only good and bad liars".
From my perspective : regardless of whether its tbe truth or a lie, events that happened can't be changed. Truth & lies are very subjective and is only relevant between people who discuss a common event.
Ahh, can't really explain it.. i rather use the word "honest". Parent's used to tell me that i should always tell the truth. Well logically speaking we all should, thats if we were robots without emotions. Truth, lies , honesty,dishonesty, they exist because of men's emotions. We lie? why because we are afraid, shy its always because of the way we feel. We tell the truth only when we know that there would be no negative consequence to either party. I'd never tell my dad i smoke, because i don't want to hurt his feelings not because i don't have the courage to admit my faults.
Truth can be subjective or objective and someone who thinks that he is telling truth can be completely wrong. Truth is the feeling that I'm telling the truth.
And now consider if truth is relative, what is the bases for your truth?
Truth must be based on something so that your truth, my truth or the truth can hold up when it is tested for falsibility. It's like the testibility of some theory. Are all of the truthful pieces (facts) provides or are there pieces still missing?
Socialoutcast... I do not think truth is relative. It is absolute, but our perception is relative..... relative to communication, research and beliefs.
It is said there is only one 'truth' and that truth is ...
The only truth is that we exist, for the time being. The rest are all false. The life that we lead the people whom we meet, the work that we do, the money that we make, the war that we fight,... everything is false.
The truth runs after the false and then on one bright day, everything vanishes. But the truth continues to live and it reveals the real truth to the person who has died. It gets consumed in the truth and the truth alone continues to exist.
That was on truth!
On Sep 11, that's where the discussion has started. If I were to quote Chomsky, 'the incident by no means is big in its magnitude'. As a matter of fact, terrorist attacks of this size is happening every other day in some part of the world or the other. Because it happened in US and in New York of all places, it attracted attention.
But that does not make it any less deplorable. It is as bad as it is when it happens elsewhere. But then there is no need to run a revenge campaign. A more concerted balanced approach from US would have given better dividends. If only US had not supported Saddam in his early days, we would not have had Kuwait invaded in the first place. If only US had not supported and trained Al Qaida, we would not have had the twin tower bombing.
How I wish US will refrain itself from training terrorists and terrorist organizations in this world? How I wish US will stop supplying arms to countries that are managed by military dictators? How I wish US will denounce all kinds of terrorist activities in the world including the ones that are not directed against US? If only US will stop all kinds of war bound aid to any country...
On Sep 11, it would have been the best homage to the departed souls if US and its people had taken the pledge to do all of the above or at least some of the above, they would have done a great service to mankind...
Ahhh, our perceptions do indeed influance the way that we see truth. It is also true that the truth is provable by only by means outside of itself by other truths. Our sole perceptions inside our own minds should not determine what truth is, but rather should be found and confirmed from the things around us. For example, if tell you that I drive a green car, the color of my car is percieved as green by me until I show you my car to varify it's color. As my car is what is around me and not in my head your perception of the color of my car can confirm that my car is indeed green.
(Actually, it's mostly green with a blue fender )
ok but what about perceptions in the other senses? sense of touch? taste? everyone has different tastes. smell. sound. people hear, see, smell differently and therefore have different "truths" ... so is it the majority that gets to own the truth? (in america, yes)
I can see where you're going with this, but there is also a difference between truth, opinion, and personal preferance which factors into how we percieve the world. Our personal world view does not necessasarily equal THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
Consider 80 grit sandpaper and how rough it feels. Most people would consider that sandpaper having a rough texture, but how rough depends on differances in individuals sensibility to touch. But in reality the roughness of the sandpaper did not change.
In the movie The Matrix, the child in the Oracle's home warns Neo that to try to bend the spoon is impossible and then goes on to explain, ďIt is not the spoon you are trying to bend; it is only yourselfĒ.
the absolute truth isn't even contained in this realm. we have to attain a higher state of mind before we can understand truth.
absolute truth?? can you prove that ?
This is true - it's hard to set something in stone 100%.
For example, I never force my beliefs on people - but I ask them, is it possible? Can it be said with 100% guarantee that there is no God? Likewise, can it be said with 100% guarantee that there is a God? Keeping your mind open is what it's all about.
Truth is something hard to define, but you usually recognize it when you see it.
Fair assessment. Just give me a chisal and a tombstone.
I would like to hear from someone who either works in law enforcement, crime scene investigation or justice on the matter of the existance of truth. So is there anyone out there in one of those fields?
I found this that might help out here.
Many times truth is confused with justice. Justice is not truth. If you tell the truth it does not mean you will get justice either. Truth has two colors. One, it is dependent on context. Or context sensitive truth. The other is always truth. This is what I think some of the people are calling as the absolute truth
Context Sensitive Truth (CST) is something which changes with person, place, time and every other variable that you can conceive. Absolute truth is fixed and does not change under all circumstances. To give an instance, god is a cst whereas if some body does a murder, there can only be one truth.
Well.. didn't know there was more than one kind of truth.. from my experience.. people will belive what a powerfull person says.. more than a guy who showed up yesterday.. and that is their truth.. It is what you think you are.. IF you belive somthing to be true then that is your truth.. if you belive something to be live.. then you always will belive that to be lie..
For the last time, I've been strongly into psychological books and lectures, and there was one sentence that moved me very much. All of these books had one thing in common - all of them stated that the main indicator of your menthal health is how your perception of the world is accurate. In other words, menthal disorders like schizophrenia mean that a person is unable to perceive the surrounding world properly - hears voices or has paranoidal fears of something that does not exist. This doesn't mean that such a person is lying or pretending. It means only that he/she is unable to see and hear things as they are.
Well, most of us are schizophrenical in some way. That means, we tend to deny our vices and project them onto other people. In a higher or lower degree, we have difficulties to admit that we have dark sides, but we notice our disadvantages in the people surrounding us. Again, this doesn't mean that we lie or that each of us has his own truth, but that we have difficulties in perceiving the reality exactly the way it is.
Of course, there are some people, whose level of menthal health is much more higher than average. They are aware of all of their hidden emotions and subconcious reactions, and they know exactly their place in their family, live, and in the universe. About such people we could say that they are very close to know the absolute truth. Yeah, I do believe that the absolute truth does exist, independently on the personal feelings or the observations. But to assume such a thing there must be an outer point of reference, outside of the universe that those laws of truth deal with. That's why it would be very hard to believe in absolute truth without believing in God, or anything like Him.
For those who'd like to get known more on that matter, I strongly recommend the book "Life and How to Survive It", by John Cleese and Robin Skynner. Not only very wise, but also pretty funny
It is true that justice can be confused by many truths. But the path of justice is to attempt to sort out at best it can the truth with what evidence it has. Often times in justice evidence is incomplete or tampared with, but still for justice to be done, a verdict is required. "[Truth] is dependant on context." I would say that is refered as relativism. Your truth is yours and my truth is mine. I like what is said by the_marska:
We do indeed tend to deny certain aspects of our reality to make our thoughts cohiesive within ourselves, to find peace with ourselves and others.
Somewhere there must be some objective truth out there, the problem is we all can't agree on just one.
Love God, love people, drink coffee
when it regards to word "TRUTH", i think we must be objective. Everyone has its own version of truth.
Truth is absolute, but our perceptions of what is true are entirely subjective. You can only check so far up to evaluate the credibility of information, and what we believe to be credible varies alot from person to person. My friend seems to take everything the president says at face value, my grandmother will cite the bible as the definative source of truth to no end, and my physics teacher talks about new studies like they are holy scripture. So who and what are we to believe? I can't remember who said it, but they said it best, As rare as the truth is, the supply is always more than the demand.
Truth is perception. Or at least a large part of it is.
Truth is always a perception. What matters is the perception itself!
In yester year India, truth is of two kinds. One, Dharma the fixed truth. The other is niyaya or Justice. Justice is a varying one. It varies with time, place, people, etc., Whereas Dharma is fixed under all conditions. Murder is aligned with Justice. In war it is right. In peace it is wrong. Rape is Dharma. Whenever it is done, it is wrong.
None of the judicial systems today, differentiate these two because they are all based on the same European approach to judiciary, criminal and Civil. That is why, truth is only one and not two. This will change the very approach to crime and actions taken in the world to counter crime.
Truth is dependent on circumstances. What is one persons truth will be another persons lie. Can you ever really have a true definition of truth. I think not. We will always argue with any definition given and say it is a lie - or is it really a truth.
Truth all depends on peoples definition of it. Its similar to perfection. No one can be perfect because it depends on peoples views on what perfect is. I think that this is the case with truth for although theres a general definition of truth which is the right answer to something or saying what actually happened, i belive that truth as in what people belive is right is all it is, belief. Truth doesn't exist, people will always disagree with everything, its in human nature. There is no truth in anything. A lot of people will belive otherwise but i belive that anything is possible and that it is impossible to determine whether anything is truth or not.
I don't actually think that this is too complicated, it only gets complicated when you're trying to work out what is true and what is not, and whether or not someone was/is telling the truth.
Truth is definable, and I would say that the meaning of "truth" is always going to be the same: 'A statement which is correct (true) in the mind of the speaker'.
Now that's fine, the problem lies not with the definition of "truth", but with people and their beliefs. People have already said things along the lines of "one man's truth is another man's lie"; from my definition of truth this can occur. And it does. Someone is only lying to you when they state something that they know to be false. This means that I could tell you that "the Earth is flat" and not be lying, simply because I believe it. Even though what I say could in fact be false.
1. Are you saying that truth is relative? I have alluded to this some time ago but it seems no one commented on the relativism idea. But this was brought up in many different forms such as, "truth is our perceptions" or "truth is what we make of it" and said in many more ways.
2. So is lying only lying when you know that you are lying even if your beliefs tell you that something untrue is true? I'm not going to try to answer this one just yet, but I'll list a few antonyms of the word truth and see what cooks up.
falsehood, invention, untruth, dishonesty, disloyalty, lying, untruthful, falseness, illusion, make-believe, pretense, absurdity, foolishness, nonsense, paradox, denial, disavowal, incorrectness, wrongness, disbelief, distrust, doubt, mistrust, skepticism, inaccuracy, inexactitude, inexactness, cover-up, fabrication, fiction, lie, fantasy, dubiosity, infidelity, unfaithfulness, wrong.
Well, that's all I found for now. But to contrast that list the a more formal definition for truth go here, http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=truth&x=0&y=0
I found it interesting enough to note that the list of synonyms for truth is much longer.
Love God, love people, drink coffee
Yes, I would say that truth is relative; but it's not so simple - when someone states a falsehood but truly believes it themselves then they are not lying, however what they say will not be true. I suppose this means that it is true to the person, in their own mind - this though, has no bearing on the real truth of the matter.
You can say something that is not true, but not be lying. Lying is 'intentionally misleading someone', or 'purposefully stating a falsehood in order to misinform'. Henceforth, you're not necessarily lying if you don't tell the truth (as it will be what you yourself believe; even though it is not the truth).
So, if you believe something to be true and all the evidence can show that what you believe to be true is really false, then your are only fooling yourself. You are living in denial of that truth. Put another way, would you continue to believe in something that is proven to be not true if I were to show you mountains of evidence point blank a falsehood that you may personally believe to be true would you still believe in your illusion?
Love God, love people, drink coffee
Personally no, I have strong beliefs and will speak out my thoughts, ideas and beliefs freely. If someone "were to show me mountains of evidence" which showed that I had in fact been believing in a falsehood then yes, I would happily change mind.
I would hope that everyone would be the same. However, I have heard of those who, when presented with any amount of fact (or fiction) against their beliefs will attempt to disprove it, state that it is wrong or that it lies, that the facts before them have been to some extent exaggerated or totally fabricated. I worry about those who are not prepared to change their minds, yes I agree that it can be a good thing to be strong and loyal - but this extreme is far beyond any "good thing".
Thus truth has caused problems; thus truth causes problems; thus truth will cause problems. Or rather, people's views of what the 'real' truth is causes problems.
You are wise to keep an open mind in the pursuit of truth. The willingness to test and retest your beliefs against other beliefs is something that can only assure a person in what they believe. Thinking of this I am reminded to challange myself to seek after truth. It is not an easy path to walk. I think it shows more character to correct oneself then to speak as your words are final. loyality is also a good trait to have, but what you are loyal to has its effects/drawbacks.
...Especially amoung the masses. One problem that we can't just agree on one truth is that there are more ideas than people ,so it seems like. This could explain why some people say one thing and do another (speculativily speaking). As for me, I am prone to think that there are methods out there to help us understand truth--call them tools you may.
Love God, love people, drink coffee
Social outcast, drinking coffee may not be really the right thing to do if you love god and people! What is the truth?
Sometimes you just won't believe it. If I would show you some really good evidence that the sun would die tonight you wouldn't believe me becouse you heard other sources say other things.
Or the main reason why i think people don't believe things is becouse they don't want to believe them. If someone tells you your mum died you don't want to believe them. And likewise if someone tells you your god can't exist.
Well, if someone told me that the Sun was going to die tonight then I wouldn't believe them for a number of obvious reasons, the most plain being that they could not possibly know that. However, you are right that when someone tells you something which sounds completely preposterous then you are far less likely to believe them. Yet, most claims like this are in fact only so hard to believe because they contradict so much that you are sure you know for fact - thus, they are less likely to be true anyway.
I try not to let my wants get in the way of my beliefs. If someone told me that my mum had died then I would ask the person who told me whether they were telling the truth, then I would find out myself. I would need more proof for something like this, which is only natural - after all, I do love my mum.
I can just give one definition for the truth: something is true until someone prove that's false.
It's true that a lot of things are hard to define as true or not, but is that alway needed?
It's a good way for people to talk and progress
that means it is true there are unlimited gods becouse no one can profe they don't exicst? Or to make it even worse, you can't always trust your eyes, so seeing something doesn't (dis)prove it. So even if you are looking at something it might not be the truth.
Then how should I prove something is false?
That's right, I can't. So everything is the truth.
If we are discussing truth we have to know what values we mean by truth? Are we talkin about our society or the actual 'everything a.k.a. universe?
Science is the truth i think, it is straight foreward facts and theories which when proved become facts aswell.
-This is the truth about the meaning to our life i think, the search for 'Unified Theory' which will explain our universe and everything ( hopeless one might say) in it. but one could say that IS the reason we are here.
Theories of 'truth' leave no places for anything but the facts they represent. General Theory of relativity even aknowledges it's breakdown at a singularity. So no one can say science is not truth.
But then it's a matter of opinion and what one means by truth?
Just remember that science is often wrong, and admits it. Science tries to find 'truth' or proofs of things; to explain our world and universe. But it's not easy to do and you cannot just say that "science is always right". Because it's not. So I would say that, science can be perceived as an attempt at explaining phenomena, but not as 'truth' exactly.
yeah i know science is often wrong. but then the only person who can give us the ultimate 'truth' is the god himself if he or she exists that is.
for obvious reasons...
Yeah, I see your point.
Science is often wrong but perhaps it's the closest to 'truth' that we have. In that case, should we consider it to be truth, when concerning matters which it proves? The theories which scientists come up with should not, in my opinion, be taken as truth - just a well informed, well thought out, backed up and possibly partly tested idea for 'truth'.
What do you think?
All true, but consider your options.
Science is not guaranteed to be right, but whatever it does state is guaranteed not to ever have been wrong, so far as we have observed. In other words, if science says "like charges repel" then you know the following truths about that statement:
Now, you can argue that maybe you haven't made enough observations and the next one will prove the claim wrong. Or you can say that maybe there is another factor we have not realized - maybe only charges with the same colour repel, but it just so happens that so far every positive charge we have observed has been the same colour, and if we made a positive charge with a different colour, they would not repel. However, you have no reason to believe either of those possibilities are true, because if there were a reason, science would have had to consider that reason.
So, here are your options:
Or, here's another way to look at it.
God is the only one who is possibly capable of knowing the truth; or rather, he is the one who is capable of knowing that what he knows is the truth. On the other hand, science may know the truth, or may not - science can't say for sure.
So on the one hand you have God that knows everything, but how can you ever be sure? He also may not be honest when he tells you what he claims is the truth - unless you believe that he either cannot or will not lie... but what rational reason do you have for believing that? Also you can never be sure that you understand him when he told you what he told you is the truth - his knowlege is supposedly infinite, yours is not, so how can you be sure you correctly understood what he said, even if he told you the truth.
On the other hand you have science that is guaranteed to be honest, but may not know everything. Science, by the nature of what it is - a motiveless collection of facts and conclusions based on those facts - cannot lie. And there is no way science can be beyond human understanding, as long as it is a human undertaking.
So to compare the downsides to them:
Note that i have not at any point asserted that anything is true or false. All i have done is pointed out that if you have to choose something to trust, there is only one rational choice.
It's not that Science is often wrong, most predictions made by scientists turned out to be precise. But how can we concider science to be truth if it is incomplete? No doubt that science can observe suroundings and try to come up with an explonation for the behaviour patern it observes. The problem is explonation we get from science might describe the effect acurately and enables us to make predictions may offer a totaly wrong or misleading explonation for the cause of the effect.
Concider Gravity, Newton(i think, can't remember) said gravity is an atractive force beetween two bodies which depens on distance beetween the 2 objects and their mass. (he gave us correct idea, but never offered an explonation to as why it hapenes) Einstein explained gravity as a curvature in space time around an object, which will be proportional to it's mass. An now physicists explain gravity as a 'half' particles exchange beetween the objects which in turn atracts them, or as gravitational waves.
As you see science can be confusing and mislleading. And we can't rely on science as the truth because science only tries to explain (only certain effects at this time) universe, but it can't explain where the universe came from, how is it going to end and whats outside it if there is anything?
Some might say, yes we can, universe started at the 'big-bang', but i will say "Yes, that is a widely believed theory, however science cannot prove it, because all laws of physics break down at a singularity."
So science can only try to offer some theory on the effects of the universe (taking into account it's inside the universe and not at the point of a singularity), but it predicts it's own downfall (again at a singularity), therefore it's not full proof, and herefore we cannot rely on it as the 'truth'
Actually, science can prove things such as this; it's us humans who cannot. Science would be able to prove such things if only we humans could find ways of testing / experimenting on / with them.
Indi gave a good incite into what it's more rational to believe holds the 'truth' and this still stands, no matter how often science is wrong. If you had to tell someone the truth about something, you would tell them what science explains, because that is the explanation that is most likely to be correct.
I think the comparison between science and God is irrelevant. No religion tries to explain science; they do claim that God is omniscient and should thus know all of science. But we will never know (unless God reveals himself to us) whether there really is a God, and whether - if there is - he is really all-knowing and whether he lies. Henceforth, we should merely ignore any thoughts that one might have about God being the only being capable of explaining science to us, as we cannot get anywhere from this train of thought.
Option 3: Assume that science that hasn't been proven incorrect for 'x' number of years is 'true'. And science that has not been proven for 'x' number of years becomes increasingly less trustworthy right down to the latest discovery.
It is safer to assume that science which has been reinvestigated but not proven wrong for many years it more likely to be true than newer discoveries. Also, it is safer to assume that science on which many other proven facts are based on is more likely to be true than science which is not. New ideas break frontiers and often step into the unknown, so these things are far less likely to be 'true' than facts which have been established, tested and had new theories / facts based on them.
But you are not taking into account (it seems) what i have said, the science we have so far developed breaks down at a singularity!!! So the science we have (unless we develop it further) cannot tell us what hapens at a singularity! So not only can we not test out the many theories we have about it because of the effects singularity will have on our bodies (i.e. compresing our body matter to a 0 size) and everything (almost everything) else, Singularity simply defies the 'proven science' and physics! Do you get it? Science cannot predict what happens at a singularity because at a singularity it stops functioning
I wasn't taking into account some of what you said because I thought it wrong.
When looking at a singularity you are going to use all of known science to attempt to understand it.
You said "unless we develop it further", of course science cannot explain things that have not been yet discovered; for example: you cannot investigate the electrons of an atom before discovering the atom. The fact that we haven't yet discovered some things in science does not mean in any way that we cannot trust science. No, moreover it shows how we can trust science, as it attempts to build on our knowledge and understanding of proven phenomena - not jump to conclusions and pretend to be all-knowing and all-explanatory.
Yeah, because almost all of these possible singularities are in fact impossible - including your example. And the singularities which are not impossible? Well, those can either be tested or cannot; if they can then... well, okay, great go science! If not, then we haven't got that far... what's your point? Just because we can't prove absolutely everything doesn't mean that you can't trust the science that we currently have.
I have faith in our science certanly, but at the moment science is not the 'truth' because as you said it is incomplete. Neverthless if singularity does exist (i think it was already proven that it does?) we won't be able to test our theories about it because of the effects it poseses. although who knows?
You can certanly trust science on our human level, because it predicts all effect acurately, but on a large scale....it's a different story.
Science never claims to be 'true' and to consider it as such is a mistake.
As Bikerman said, science never claims to be the 'truth'; yet I would say that it is the closest to the 'truth' that we have. But only on matters which it addresses and nothing more; furthermore, it does not have to be complete (as it never will be) for certain aspects of it to be thought of as 'true', as these certain aspects will not be related to everything else anyway.
We can only talk about things on a human level, as we are ourselves humans and have not experienced anything other than our own experiences. We cannot therefore say that things will be different on a "larger scale", as we just don't know what things outside our experience will be like.
yes well thats what i was tryint to say....sorry if i wasn't clear in my expression of thoughts. Science can't claim it's true becasue it is inncomplete.
Well I found it a bit confusing, must be only me, forgive me but my intelegence is far from reaching it's peak, I'm 17.
I'm not sure it's only relativity that breaks down at singularity. I haven't seen Quantum Gravity theory and as you said
As far as I know it does. and can you clear up the second bit for me please?
No...science fundamentally does not claim truth because truth is impossible to demonstrate. It's down to a problem called Induction which was first outlined by Hulme and 'solved' by Popper this century. Essentially, no matter how many times you perform an experiment and get a positive result, you can never logically state that the theory is, therefore, correct.
The simple example is :- the Sun has risen everyday for the last few billion years therefore it is correct that it will rise tomorrow and the theory that says so must be correct......WRONG. One day it won't. Because of this central problem science does not work by trying to prove things true, it does the opposite and tries to show them to be false (Refutation). That's the point I was getting at.
This is where we need some input from my friend Ed (Newolder) who is MUCH more familiar with current developments in Quantum Gravity and related fields.
The point about truth and proof is the same as I made above...you cannot prove something correct. (Actually you can but only in a closed system of formal logic by making statements known as Tautologies and that is not really applicable here). Popper (one of my science hero's) was a philosopher of science who suggested refutability as the key distinction between science and non-science. Basically if you can prove something wrong (that is, if it is POSSIBLE to prove it wrong) then it is a scientific concept. If you can't then it isn't. By this definition, for example, neuro-psychology is a science but behavioural psychology isn't.
Now, for the details on QG....firstly I'll give Ed a shout because I'm sure he can provide a better answer that the one I'll attempt.
To be specific, the theory I'm talking about is Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) which is not the same as quantum gravity generally. LQG is an attempt to quantise Einstein's Relativity theory by incorporating quantum theory. In many respects this is one of the Holy Grails in science. This has always been though impossible because several mathematical obstacles immediately arise. Recently, however, there has been major progress in the field and there is now some optimism that LQG can successfully quantise General Relativity in a manner which is consistent with both Relativity and Quantum theory. It does this specifically by treating General Relativity as a 'Gauge' theory.
General Relativity has several key underlying 'planks' - specifically background independence, diffeomorphism, invariance and the equivalence principle. LQG can apparently quantise General Relativity in a way which preserves these key planks. I'd probably better explain what each of them means....and at that point I will be reaching the extent of my knowledge and have to hand over to Ed...
Background Independence : This basically means that all the fields necessary to describe spacetime are independant of any specific metric or specific connections of spacetime....in short the theory has to work regardless of what 'shape' spacetime is - whether it is flat, concave, convex or some weird and wonderful manifold shape.
Diffeomorphism - a mathematical term describing the 'mapability' of one manifold onto another. A manifold is simply a chartable surface which conforms to normal Euclidean geometry. I'm not enough of a mathematician to go much further with this one...
Invariance - basically in physics this means that some quantity is preserved when you perform a transformation (meaning a rotation, reflection or translation). An example of an invariant is c (speed of light) in a Lorentz transformation. Normally an invariance indicates some fundamental principle or law of conservation.
Equivalence principle - basically a statement that the laws of physics should be the same, wherever you are. More formally, the Einstein equivalence principle states that any local non-gravitational experiment in an inertial frame of reference is independent of the velocity or location in the universe of the experiment.
Now, at that point I must hand over to a more specialised poster to pick up on any errors I've made and hopefully expand and explain anything that I have bodged..
Wow, all that about that LQG, I'll just say that is over my head, I won't even attempt to touch it.
I would have to agree that science should not claim to be truth as it is a systematic process of explaining the things which we observe. Sure there have been some wrong scientific observations made in history, but of the nature of science is to correct those errors by means of the scientific method. This is and has been a fine method for rooting out error. In other words, when an observation X results in explanation X, sometime later error is found in the explanation, it is the up to science to correct that as our understanding of observation X increases.
Can we understand something better? Of course. Can we investigate an observation further to learn more about it? Can we test a hypothesis over and over until it breaks? Of course. And when it breaks we have to correct the hypothesis and then keep poking at it. So in a way, science is self-correcting of its errors.
Science should not claim ultimate truth, because there is always something more that we can learn about a given subject like Bikerman's examination of LQG which I had now Idea of until I read that post. I would assume that there would be ongoing work to investigate gravity and its applications, but had no idea what direction it was headed in. I'll admit that I don't keep up on the latest scientific developments at least int the world of physics.
I think that is a good point. From my view, Science should not try to explain the attributes of God, and Theology should not try to explain science for these operate in two different realms. Science on one hand explains more natural things and theology explains things more unnatural. At least as my understanding of God goes.
So, would it be fair to say that science is a collection of working and continually-updating hypothesis' which best explain the observed effects of the universe around us?
Love God, Love people, drink coffee.
The truth about events is different from absolute truth, no? humans have always searched for an absolute truth, something unchanging, something that guides...isn't that part of the search involved in religious pursuit? well, maybe one part of it depending on the one doing the investigation...One needs to ask oneself, is truth different from reality? If yes, then can we understand it?...I mean maybe our brains can't handle an absolute truth. Maybe thought is just too self centered and confused and confusing...maybe truth is something that can't be spoken or understood via the path that we know as knowledge...