Dear James, Let us first be clear about the nature of "truth" from a scientific point of view. "Truth" is simply a way of speaking about existence, it is a way of speaking about the correspondence that you seek between the apprehension of statements and the way things are.
"Justified true beliefs" are today, essentially, verifiable and fallible, not absolute. This is now how we characterize Plato's appeal to "justification." Therefore, even incorrect science can be said to be "true." Newton's laws are true to this extent, they do correspond to the way things are, they are verifiable and fallible. That we know the extent of their fallibility is beside the point. General Relativity is simply a closer approximation, also verifiable and fallible. Can we say that Newton's laws are "not true" on the basis of this? If we are rigorous about it, I don't think that we can. Clearly GR can be said to be closer to the way things are because the statement of it is a broader "explanation." But if we do so then we must accept that "truth" is simply a matter of degree, a measure of "certainty" in our statements. In short, "truth" has become redundant, a metaphysical notion inherited from a time when the conception of "absolute truth" seemed viable and could be imparted by an ultimate authority. In fact, there is no such authority and "truth" is a meaningless notion in science unless by it we refer to "certainty," a question of degree - and at that point it is obsolete. "Truth" is then a "psuedo-problem" in philosophy. Science necessarily abandons all hope of absolute truth and our use of the term and hand-wringing over the notion can be comfortably abandoned. I still do not understand the appeal to postmodernism. There does not seem to me to be anything postmodern about "no knowledge outside the knower." Indeed, it is a modern idea developed by logicians of the modern era. [I'm thinking of the subjectivism of Frege and the positivism/pragmaticism of Carnap and Peirce. I exclude the empiricism of Reichenbach only because it now seems to me that it tends to leave the question untouched; but I'm open to arguments to the contrary.] Incidentally, I ignored your appeal to "objective reality" because I really do not know what you refer to without some clarification from you. However, I do accept that the universe is existent, that I am a part of it, and that it is that which we test our theories against. With respect, Steven On Mar 7, 2011, at 12:54 PM, James Hannam wrote: > Dear Steven, > > I agree that science has forced us to accept that the universe is an > objective reality. It stands as an unforgiving test of our theories which > must be judged accordingly. Although we cannot say that the “scientific > method” is certainly the best way to investigate nature, we can be fairly > sure that it is the best way discovered so far. > > Knowledge of the universe, of course, is not the same thing as the universe > itself and does require a knower. However, it must have some correspondence > to the universe in order to qualify as something which we know – what Plato > called justified true beliefs. Thus, as a historian of science, I > completely accept that my subject is a story of how we discovered knowledge > that corresponds to the universe and rejected those theories that do not. > But neither do I want to err in the opposite direction. False theories can > nevertheless be useful; true theories can be generated in irrational ways; > intuition can be a powerful theory builder; not all dead ends are blind > alleys. So I think we can take a mildly positivist slant on the history of > science while still taking on board the lessons of what Jerry calls > postmodernism. > > Best wishes > > James > > The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the > Scientific Revolution by James Hannam is available for pre-order now. > > "Well-researched and hugely enjoyable." New Scientist > > “A spirited jaunt through centuries of scientific development… captures the > wonder of the medieval world: its inspirational curiosity and its engaging > strangeness.” Sunday Times > > “This book contains much valuable material summarised with commendable > no-nonsense clarity… James Hannam has done a fine job of knocking down an > old caricature.” Sunday Telegraph > > > -----Original Message----- > From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On > Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith > Sent: 06 March 2011 23:46 > To: Foundations of Information Science of Information Science Information > Information Science > Subject: Re: [Fis] Reply to Jerry > > Dear Stan, > > You wrote: > > On Mar 6, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Stanley N Salthe wrote: > >> >> ... There can be no 'objective' knowledge of properties outside the > material abilities of the knower. Bridgman was the most honest physicist! > And von Uexküll was the best psychologist. There is no knowledge outside > the knower. All is 'local knowledge' only. Yes, this is postmodernism. > However, even with this viewpoint as a standpoint, one can proceed to do > standard theoretical and philosophical work because, for example, the > universe IS one of our equations! In postmodernism, scientific theory and > philosophy become artistic achievements for their own sake, expressing > humanity's, and more particularly Western Culture's imagination. The > difference, then, is that in the postmodern view, there might be other > perspectives, while in the standard scientific view there is only one true > perspective, which frequently gets locked into repressive ‘bandwagons’ (as > in Darwinian evolutionary biology, or general relativity cosmology). > > > Excepting for some complaint concerning the labels you choose (I don't see > the point of calling this fact "post modernism" or referring to scientific > theory as "artistic achievements"), and if I understand you correctly, I > agree with that there is "no knowledge outside the knower." > > However, that does not avoid the fact that the universe is profoundly > uniform and it is that uniformity upon which we rely. > > At core, accepting potential refinement of the scientific method, I can't > imagine what "other perspectives" are allowed ... but, perhaps, that is my > own (positivist) intellectual investment. Your sociological comments do not > persuade me that there are alternatives. > > With respect, > Steven > > > -- > Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith > Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering > http://iase.info > http://senses.info > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
