NOAH'S ARK GREAT FLOOD Update

[Canuckistani]

Oh dear. I have a suspicion of what you're getting at, but am not certain. Can you expand on how the observed and calculated rotation of the Earth around the Sun is not an absolute truth?

Hard to argue against something I believe in myself. But:

While our scientific knowledge changes rapidly, the absolute reality that is being modeled has never changed. The scientific method assumes an absolute reality against which theories can be verified.

Alfred North Whitehead, a British mathematician who became an American philosopher^{[citation needed]}, said: "There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that play the devil".

People often look to science to determine whether something constitutes an absolute truth, butscience tends to avoid absolutism. Even when scientists reasonably believe an explanation, it is often couched as theory or proofs. However, as we advance in science, we often find ourselves disproving proofs. Yet a great deal of proof on a subject makes it more likely, but does not make itabsolute truth.

The earth moving around the sun is not an absolute truth for me. I believe it does, I believe the people who have calculated it, But that's not an absolute truth. And much of science, of course, the interesting stuff, doesn't have near the unanimous agreement that heliocentricity does.

[Canuckistani]

That's all well and good, and philosophy and metaphysics are interesting topics to discuss, but they aren't relativity or quantum mechanics. Nor are they strictly "science" at all. Further, if one wishes to intelligently discuss the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, one should first have a deep understanding of quantum mechanics, which no one on this forum does.

Few of us here are experts on any subject being discussed. That doesn't, nor should it, stop us discussing it. And even experts on a subject disagree, as I posted about consciousness and collapse of the waveform. Pick your expert and run with him, don't pretend you have a hold of the absolute truth on the matter. Even the xperts don't. (Expert - x is an unknown quantity and spurt is a drip under pressure.).

[g_bambino]

The earth moving around the sun is not an absolute truth for me. I believe it does, I believe the people who have calculated it, But that's not an absolute truth. And much of science, of course, the interesting stuff, doesn't have near the unanimous agreement that heliocentricity does.

Thanks, but that all just begs the same request for clarification.

I'll express my suspicion: Nothing of what we perceive, no matter how detailed and nuanced the perception, can be held to be absolute truth because our ways of perceiving and understanding are constrained by the natural limits of our senses and brains. Is that what you're getting at?

[Guest Manny]

I tend to come from a more Anthropocentric view, if you asked me about the tree falling in forest when no one is around, I might say, "No, it doesn't make a sound." But I can afford to say things like that, being a human being.

Nothing of what we perceive, no matter how detailed and nuanced the perception, can be held to be absolute truth

It goes deeper than that. I'm sure you've heard of the uncertainty principle. There is a fundamental limit to precision.

[Guest Manny]

As a whole science is humble, truth seeking and self correcting. It does not profess to have all the answers; in fact, it readily points out gaps in our understanding and seeks to fill them in.

Like you said science isn't a "thing" though.

You have given science a very compassionate and understanding "human" face. You have given it the very human virtues, which religion wants to give you as a human being.

Where science seeks to find a single, unified theory of everything, religion, or if the word suits better human spirituality seeks to find individual truth, for the one single person. No one has a problem with the fact there are so many religions, so many different sects, viewpoints, with variations in emphasis on religious teachings from different books. There is no one religion. But there does seem to be great effort to have one science.

So who really believes in the empirical, monolithic truth that applies in every circumstance, since the beginning of time?

Edited January 9, 2013 by Manny

[Canuckistani]

Thanks, but that all just begs the same request for clarification.

I'll express my suspicion: Nothing of what we perceive, no matter how detailed and nuanced the perception, can be held to be absolute truth because our ways of perceiving and understanding are constrained by the natural limits of our senses and brains. Is that what you're getting at?

Said better than I could.

Some things, like the earth revolving around the sun, from our frame of reference at least, seem pretty straight forward, tho of course some straight forward things are subject to revision as well. But many things aren't even straightforward by any means. Evolution would be a subject relevant to this discussion. I believe it, but it certainly isn't something that's 100 percent certain. The point is that science can't reveal the truth. It certainly can't say if there's a God or not, nor even with any certainty talk about the beginning of the universe or the beginning of life. Hawkins asked the Pope where there was room for God in the universe as Hakins understood it. I think there's plenty, depending of course on your definition of God. Fundamentalists claim the entire bible is literal truth, ie scientifically provable. That's just silly.

[Bonam]

It goes deeper than that. I'm sure you've heard of the uncertainty principle. There is a fundamental limit to precision.

Which, again, is completely unrelated to the philosophical question of whether there is such a thing as "absolute truth". The uncertainty principle states that the product of the precision to which you can measure the momentum and the position of an object is a finite non-zero value. While it prevents you from measuring, simultaneously, the exact position and momentum of an object, it does not prevent you from making many other true statements about said object.

[Guest Manny]

Which, again, is completely unrelated to the philosophical question of whether there is such a thing as "absolute truth". The uncertainty principle states that the product of the precision to which you can measure the momentum and the position of an object is a finite non-zero value. While it prevents you from measuring, simultaneously, the exact position and momentum of an object, it does not prevent you from making many other true statements about said object.

See you keep moving the goal posts here as the conversation drifts around. The poster had said, as quoted, "Nothing of what we perceive, no matter how detailed and nuanced the perception, can be held to be absolute truth" .

It's the detailed and nuanced part I was talking about.

[Bonam]

You have given science a very compassionate and understanding "human" face. You have given it the very human virtues, which religion wants to give you as a human being.

Where science seeks to find a single, unified theory of everything, religion, or if the word suits better human spirituality seeks to find individual truth, for the one single person. No one has a problem with the fact there are so many religions, so many different sects, viewpoints, with variations in emphasis on religious teachings from different books. There is no one religion. But there does seem to be great effort to have one science.

So who really believes in the empirical, monolithic truth that applies in every circumstance, since the beginning of time?

Science is a method, a tool. Like a hammer or a drill. A very useful and powerful tool to be sure, but nothing more than that.

[Bonam]

See you keep moving the goal posts here as the conversation drifts around. The poster had said, as quoted, "Nothing of what we perceive, no matter how detailed and nuanced the perception, can be held to be absolute truth" .

It's the detailed and nuanced part I was talking about.

Absolute truth is a philosophical concept and the answer to whether or not it exists or can be perceived by humans is a matter of how you define absolute truth.

[Guest Manny]

Science is a method, a tool. Like a hammer or a drill. A very useful and powerful tool to be sure, but nothing more than that.

For some it is. That would be more specific to the subset of science, engineering. It's not quite as practical a tool to debate the big bang, universal expansion, or dark energy as though it were like a hammer, or a drill.

[Bonam]

For some it is. That would be more specific to the subset of science, engineering. It's not quite as practical a tool to debate the big bang, universal expansion, or dark energy as though it were like a hammer, or a drill.

Engineering is the application of science as a tool to develop useful technologies and systems. But that is not the only context in which it is a tool. More generally, science is a tool used by scientists to understand the universe. And it is precisely the application of science as a tool that will allow us to gain greater knowledge about the origins of the universe, dark matter and dark energy.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Bonam

[Guest Manny]

Absolute truth is a philosophical concept and the answer to whether or not it exists or can be perceived by humans is a matter of how you define absolute truth.

That's fine, because Schroedinger can't decide if a cat is alive or dead in a box! According to quantum physics, it's both at the same time!

In science such rules and logic only work over a finite range.

[Bonam]

That's fine, because Schroedinger can't decide if a cat is alive or dead in a box! According to quantum physics, it's both at the same time!

In science such rules and logic only work over a finite range.

Schroedinger may not know whether the cat is alive or dead, but he knows there's a cat in the box.

To clarify: the point here is that even though you can't know all things with certainty, there are some things that you can indeed know with certainty.

Additionally, even if there is a finite limit of precision to which you can know something, you can still know it with certainty to within that level of precision. There is nothing untrue about a statement that says Object A is at position X +/- 0.00001.

Again, "absolute truth" is a philosophical concept. Science does not talk about absolute truth

Edited January 9, 2013 by Bonam

[Canuckistani]

Not for sure he doesn't.

[GostHacked]

Schroedinger may not know whether the cat is alive or dead, but he knows there's a cat in the box.

He only knows becuse he put the cat in there. Otherwise I can present you with a box, tell you there is a cat, but since you cannot verify then we have three possibilities existing at the same time. The cat is alive, the cat is dead,, and there is no cat.

Again, "absolute truth" is a philosophical concept. Science does not talk about absolute truth

So tell me how 2+2=4 being philosophical in it's absolute truth? Alright this may be a bad example.. but only one I could think of at the moment. Math is absolute I would say in garnering truth.

[Guest Manny]

So tell me how 2+2=4 being philosophical in it's absolute truth? Alright this may be a bad example.. but only one I could think of at the moment. Math is absolute I would say in garnering truth.

Because, reality dictates that there is no such thing as 2. The number 2, or any absolute numbers exist as purely imaginary concepts. "Math" is a construct of human thought. Where is math, if not in your mind? I looked, didn't see a two anywhere...

[Bonam]

He only knows becuse he put the cat in there. Otherwise I can present you with a box, tell you there is a cat, but since you cannot verify then we have three possibilities existing at the same time. The cat is alive, the cat is dead,, and there is no cat.

Yeah or maybe there are 17 giraffes each in varying states of life and death. In science, if you state a problem a certain way, then those are the givens used in solving that problem. The consideration of whether the givens are actually lies and the poser of the problem is pulling a prank is not part of the science process.

So tell me how 2+2=4 being philosophical in it's absolute truth? Alright this may be a bad example.. but only one I could think of at the moment. Math is absolute I would say in garnering truth.

Math is internally self-consistent, and statements such as 2+2=4 proceed from basic axioms of a certain subset of math. It has no direct correspondence to any physical realities unless given context.

[Canuckistani]

Math is internally self-consistent, and statements such as 2+2=4 proceed from basic axioms of a certain subset of math. It has no direct correspondence to any physical realities unless given context.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic.

An axiom is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.^[1] The word comes from the Greek ἀξίωμα 'that which is thought worthy or fit,' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'^[2][3] As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning.^[4] Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory and domain dependent) truths. An axiom is defined as a mathematical statement that is accepted as being true without a mathematical proof.^[5]

[Bonam]

Not sure of the point you're making? Yes, I am aware of Godel's incompleteness theorem.

[Black Dog]

Why is it betsy, who is so skeptical of science and its methods, so desperately wants it to validate her crackpot religious views?

[Mighty AC]

She is part of a movement that aims to make religious belief more credible, so that it can attract more followers, by weaving in science. They simultaneously accept, deny and misrepresent scientific knowledge in an attempt to make creationism seem plausible. There is no actual theory of intelligent design because it is simply the insertion of a god (or other intelligent being) into the gaps in our current understanding. Oddly enough, they do not feel it is necessary to explain the origin of the life, they use to explain the origin life.

[Canuckistani]

She is part of a movement that aims to make religious belief more credible, so that it can attract more followers, by weaving in science. They simultaneously accept, deny and misrepresent scientific knowledge in an attempt to make creationism seem plausible. There is no actual theory of intelligent design because it is simply the insertion of a god (or other intelligent being) into the gaps in our current understanding. Oddly enough, they do not feel it is necessary to explain the origin of the life, they use to explain the origin life.

That last sentence needs clarification.

But yep, they try to use science to bolster their beliefs, then disparage the validity of science when it is shown that their beliefs can't possibly have a scientific basis. Science is a powerful paradigm - as a society we've come to accept it as revealing the truth, which is also a mistake. We don't recognize it's limitations. The hard atheists are as stupid about this as the fundamentalists. Freud made the same mistake when he tried to present psychoanalysis as science. New agers also try to incorporate quantum physics to bolster their beliefs, and tho I'm not a new ager I've also walked down that road a piece. There may be something to it, but so far there's no definitive proof there either.

[Mighty AC]

That last sentence needs clarification.

"Oddly enough, they do not feel it is necessary to explain the origin of the life, they use to explain the origin life."

Proponents of ID believe that a designer seeded life and guided evolution. Their reasoning is simply, cells and evolution are too complex to have formed naturally. Yet, they do not feel the need to explain the origin of this designer that happens to be far more complex than the natural phenomenon they are attempting to explain.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Mighty AC

[g_bambino]

Said better than I could.

I see and thank you.

I suppose, then, that scientific exploration can only seek to get as close as possible to the truth by amassing and considering as many as-close-as-possible-to-the-truths.