science and Truth

rachMiel

does science seek

- Truth (with a capital T)

or

- models that can predict behavior with a high degree of accuracy

?

rachMiel

(this topic doesn't really fit in a Buddhism for Beginners subforum, but i couldn't find a more appropriate place to post it. General Banter seemed good until i read the instruction: "Hey, lay off the heady discussions!")

ShiftPlusOne

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Read that and see if it answers your question.

rachMiel

thanks, SPO, i will definitely check the wikipedia Science entry out.

what's your take on whether science seeks Truth or predictive models?

ShiftPlusOne

Well, that would fall under the category of science, so whatever applies to science applies to specific sciences.

Your question is in the field of philosophy. You can slice, dice and categorize ideas, but what's the point? Ontologists have addressed this question many times, so you can read what minds greater that our own have written about it. I am sure Plato and Aristotle would've covered this in depth.

You can argue it's subjective, there is no Truth, just our perception of reality. With this approach science is just a set of observed rules and reasonable explanations.

You can argue it''s objective and there is a Truth. This Truth may then be possible to find through empirical study if we do it right, perhaps the Truth is out of reach of scientific understanding, but it's still there. If you have this approach, then science is an attempt to get to the Truth, regardless of whether or not our brains can comprehend what it is. We try to get close even if perfection is impossible.

Then there's the post-modernist approach. Everything is an illusion, we use words, but the words I say may have different meaning to you. Reality itself is an illusion, a collection of thoughts. It's a social construct, there are no categories, there are no laws. Then science itself becomes a social construct, nothing more.

There is enough reading material on the topic to last you a lifetime, so just take your pick. Is there an ultimate Truth? If so, are we able to get to it? What's the nature of this Truth? Does it exist outside of our minds? These are all questions only you can answer for yourself.

Short answer: it's whatever you want it to be.

SyntheticKinetic

As a scientist, we use predictive models. Anyone who says otherwise is misled. I find that Truth (an ultimate, unchanging form of truth, i.e. platonic forms, etc.) is more applicable to philosophy and the liberal arts.

I'm more concerned with helping people in the medical field than with finding the Truth (at least during my day). Even if I did actively search for Truth with a capitol T, I'm not sure pharmacology would be the quickest path.

ShiftPlusOne

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_objectivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_truth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

...the list goes on and on. Outside of Wikipedia, Aristotle, Plato and university philosophy textbooks would keep you busy.

If you want to discuss this purely on the level of Buddhism, you can try. However, without understanding other approaches you can't sound reasonable. I am sure you can see this when people try to debunk things they know nothing about... they just make assumptions and sound foolish.

TheJourney

ShiftPlusOne wrote: »

Ontologists have addressed this question many times, so you can read what minds greater that our own have written about it. I am sure Plato and Aristotle would've covered this in depth.

I largely agree with what you said, but this is where, in my opinion, you go wrong. There is no "greater mind than self" for self is lack of self. Inferiority is an illusion.

ShiftPlusOne

It's a fact that those guys have defined western philosophy and it's a fact that my experience with it is limited. I didn't mean that they were literally greater or superior, but in that exact field... absolutely. I know the big flower, small flower example and it's helpful for many things especially in the context of endlessly chasing power or thinking less of yourself because someone is better at something. In this discussion, I don't think it has much practical value though.

TheJourney

ShiftPlusOne wrote: »

It's a fact that those guys have defined western philosophy and it's my experience with it is limited. I didn't mean that they were literally greater or superior, but in that exact field... absolutely. I know the big flower, small flower example and it's helpful for many things especially in the context of endlessly chasing power or thinking less of yourself because someone is better at something. In this discussion, I don't think it has much practical value though.

What I mean is, since you're still stuck in the illusion of separateness you're not as good as some others, but there's no logical reason you can't learn as much as them if not more. over "time."

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Right_Exertions

ShiftPlusOne

Or perhaps you have the illusion that I have that illusion?

I don't suffer from superiority or inferiority, I just have no desire to focus on studying western philosophy as interesting as it may be. Thus I am leaving it to those who know more about it. Don't read too much into my choice of words.

TheJourney

ShiftPlusOne wrote: »

Or perhaps you have the illusion that I have that illusion?

I don't suffer from superiority or inferiority, I just have no desire to focus on studying western philosophy as interesting as it may be. Thus I am leaving it to those who know more about it. Don't read too much into my choice of words.

In that case good point. Western philosophy often takes away from the truth which it is exposed to.

rachMiel

this, from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, addresses nicely the question i raised in the opening message of the thread:

Is The Goal of Scientific Research to Achieve Truth?

Except in special cases, most scientific researchers would agree that their results are only approximately true. Nevertheless, to make sense of this, philosophers need adopt no special concept such as “approximate truth.” Instead, it suffices to say that the researchers’ goal is to achieve truth, but they achieve this goal only approximately, or only to some approximation.

Other philosophers believe it’s a mistake to say the researchers’ goal is to achieve truth. These “scientific anti-realists” recommend saying that research in, for example, physics, economics, and meteorology, aims only for usefulness. When they aren’t overtly identifying truth with usefulness, the instrumentalists Peirce, James and Schlick take this anti-realist route, as does Kuhn. They would say atomic theory isn’t true or false but rather is useful for predicting outcomes of experiments and for explaining current data. Giere recommends saying science aims for the best available “representation”, in the same sense that maps are representations of the landscape. Maps aren’t true; rather, they fit to a better or worse degree. Similarly, scientific theories are designed to fit the world. Scientists should not aim to create true theories; they should aim to construct theories whose models are representations of the world.

ShiftPlusOne

There you go, you've found an answer you are personally at peace with.

rachMiel

truth! :-) but i'm not looking for "an answer" as much as i'm interested in exploring the question collaboratively, as a group.

so, friends, if you have a take on the original question and are into it, please share! :-)