Does this group advance epistemology?
zinnic
Do qualified epistemologist read and post to this group? I joined the
group in the hope of gaining some insight into the theory of knowledge.
However, most rational posts are from individuals with scientific
backgrounds and, as yet, I have seen no evidence of input by a
qualified epistemologist.
The philosophy of science is concerned with the validity of
'knowledge' derived from scientific observation and induction. One
of my concerns is the debate between advocates of Realism and its
critics. Realists claim that scientific theories may be near the truth
or false, that their near truth entails the probable existence of
unobservable entities and has explanatory significance. On the other
hand, some anti-realists (constructive empiricists) claim nearness to
truth has no relevance for science. That science aims at success but
the degree of success is unrelated to the probability of truth.
This debate clearly throws the ball into the empiricist's court. What
say you?
Zinnic
goozlefotz
I believe that nearness to the truth is irrelevant in science. Science
has no ability to determine whether or not a theory is true; it can
only tell if the theory and the data are consistent. As far as science
can tell, there could be other theories which explained the data as
well or better. The success of science has been due to dropping the
quest for truth and concentrating on viable working theories. The
oracle has spoken!!
Souvik
> I believe that nearness to the truth is irrelevant in science. Science
> has no ability to determine whether or not a theory is true; it can
> only tell if the theory and the data are consistent. As far as science
> can tell, there could be other theories which explained the data as
> well or better. The success of science has been due to dropping the
> quest for truth and concentrating on viable working theories. The
> oracle has spoken!!
How do you know something is true, though?
Give me an example.
-Souvik
Travis Michel
The statement: "Science has no ability to determine whether or not a
theory is true," is equivalent to the statement: "evidence cannot
prove a theory true". I think this is the case for all theories
derived by science.
Let me elaborate a little bit. We are familiar with the basics of the
scientific method: Beginning with observation, we notice phenomena
(repetitive events) and begin to suspect that a hypothesis is true.
This hypothesis takes the form: p -> q, or the event p implies that q
will be the case. Other logical constructions of implication are "not
p or q" and "not q implies not p".
By testing the hypothesis, we either prove it to not be the case
(false) through the argument called modus tollens, or we support it by
showing the hypothesis is not falsified by a test. It is logically
impossible to prove a hypothesis to be true. Thus the statement that
"evidence cannot prove a theory true" seems evident by the fact that
the argument:
p -> q
q,
therefore p.
is an invalid argument.
goozlefotz
Souvik wrote:
>
> How do you know something is true, though?
> Give me an example.
>
> -Souvik
I never know if anything is true. Do you? I am perfectly happy using
the models that we have; my entire career revolved around telling
electrons and photons what to do. But I do not know if they "truly"
exist. As a string theorist, I would think that you would agree.
Travis Michel
I consider that modern epistemology is better than medieval
epistemology. Why? Because not only is truth based upon logic and
derivation and prediction from theory, but also because evidence is
the final word.
Abstractly speaking, modern epistemology is better than medieval
epistemology because it assumes that evidence and truth should be
coherent. This implies that knowledge is consistent with a state of
affairs, and thus encompasses a bigger spectrum than knowledge as just
derived from self evident propositions.
However, following this train of though, one would think that the most
complete epistemology is the most advanced. We thus arrive at the
ancient pythagorean belief that "everything is one". This is, by
necessity the most complete. But I do not consider it an advance of
epistemology. Therefore, I am confused as to what could be
considered an advance in epistemology. Surely epistemology is not
just scientific advancement.
- travis.
goozlefotz
Travis Michel wrote:
> Oh, furthermore: What can be considered an advance in epistemology?
>
the ass. I can barely spell it.
Old Ice
here treating "truth" as some sort of "absolute" goal. I don't believe
truth exists as as an absolute, but only as a generalization, that is
supported by each individual's prepositioned biases. Even in an
observation; what is perceived by the observer, can only be defined by
the observers "knowledge" of what he/she learned in their past.
However, all that has been learned is an accumilation of biased
opinions. No matter what the subject of discussion, nature of
observation, or quest for truth, each item will be "judged", and/or
accepted, by each individual, based on their prior acceptance of
"truths" in their lives. The best each of us can hope for, no matter
what the subject matter, science, religion, ect..., is a better defined
generalization, that is accepted as "truth" if enough people believe it.
Old Ice
Because of the preconceived biasis each of us bring with us, even an
observation of an event is slanted by the biasis of the observer. We
search for truth, in any field, by applying our values and biasis to
our observations only to find that the closer we get to a "truth", the
more difficult it is to discern the reality of the truth. I believe we
can only get close to any particular truth, never really get there,
maybe...
Souvik
By the same token, one would not be able to say if *anything* 'truly'
existed.
So what is the point of making a statement as "But I do not know if
they "truly" exist.", because even if it did, you would never know.
Everything is at best, a model, a fit, a hypothesis.
Correction. Everything save sensations (arising from external or
internal causes). Those we can nail down with true or false. But we can
never convince another person of their truth value.
What a mess!
-Souvik
Tonguessy
Souvik wrote:
. But we can
> never convince another person of their truth value.
>
> What a mess!
>
> -Souvik
That's exactly why you, Sam, Zinnic, me etc...are so violently fighting
at times.
Because the truth doesn't exist, but such non-existence is
unacceptable.
We have working models and we love to export them. See Iraq.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, though......
Best regards
Tonguessy
goozlefotz
Tonguessy wrote:
> That's exactly why you, Sam, Zinnic, me etc...are so violently fighting
> at times.
> Because the truth doesn't exist, but such non-existence is
> unacceptable.
> We have working models and we love to export them. See Iraq.
> I'm not trying to convince you of anything, though......
>
> Best regards
>
> Tonguessy
>
Not that I think that it DOES exist, but that I think we are unable to
determine it either way. I don't care much, myself. It is fun to
argue about, but our mascinations will never get us anywhere.
Tonguessy
goozlefotz wrote:
> Tonguessy wrote:
> > Because the truth doesn't exist, but such non-existence is
> > unacceptable.
> > We have working models and we love to export them. See Iraq.
> > I'm not trying to convince you of anything, though......
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Tonguessy
> >
> I think you go a little far in asserting that truth does not exist.
> Not that I think that it DOES exist, but that I think we are unable to
> determine it either way. I don't care much, myself. It is fun to
> argue about, but our mascinations will never get us anywhere.
In other words: we don't (can't) know if the truth exists, but the
non-existence of the truth in unacceptable. Does it make any
difference, anyway?
In your message:
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/1a6822b43c3bb746
"The purpose of language is to communicate. As far as I can tell,
Tonguessy looks for every possible reason NOT to communicate, finding
all flaws in the incoming message and using these flaws as the reason
to reject it. All messages generated by humans have flaws. The idea
is to apply corrective measures so that the message can be read in
spite of the flaws. So far, Tonguessy is wasting bandwidth by
pretending to want to communicate while playing games with us. Get
real or get lost! "
We must be agnostic (no gnosis, no knowledge) about the truth. You
claim that i'm finding "every possible reason NOT to communicate". But
this is only your truth. My truth is just different. See the paradox?
"Get real or get lost!" I think that the black pixels in white screen
representing my words are real enough to witness how i care about
communicating. Whether i, you, or anyone else convey anything through
those pixels is just another story deeply rooted in what value we give
to our truths generating our models ruling our current lives.
Again, i can't convince you of anything. And i find this a wonderful
thing.
Unless you (or anyone else) finds and applies "corrective measures so
that the message can be read in spite of the flaws" we have the freedom
to misunderstand and to be misundestood. Torquemada and the Holy
Inquisition never offered such a chance, and the "corrective measures"
consisted in burning at stake.
Best regards
Tonguessy