Home > Science Group > Discussion Board

In reply to #10:

Science seeks knowledge of the truth. And by truth, I mean realities of the physical world such as gravity or the law of conservation of energy. What we currently accept as the "truth" about the universe is only as good as our tools of measurement, calculation, and imagination.

Does the truth change? Yes. If a new theory better explains observations, then the truth changes. We used to think the Earth was the center of the solar system. But, it didn't fit the data. So when Copernicus and others proposed a heliocentric model of the solar system that fit the data perfectly, it eventually replaced the geocentric model. At this time, of course, religion and science were strongly intertwined.

In fact, there is a very fine line between religion and science, for they both rely on belief. Scientists have to believe in the scientific method. If the data does not match the theory, no matter how beloved the theory is, it must be discarded. In the case of the geocentric model, people wanted to believe in perfect circles because the heavens were supposed to be perfect. But, in reality, the planets orbit the Sun in elliptical paths.

So, I don't think we'll ever arrive at absolute truths because we can never measure things 100% accurately or precisely. However, we seek to know the truth, the reality of the world around us, as best as we can, and I think that is a noble and honorable pursuit and that is what I meant when I used the word truth.

Post # 11 illustrates the point I tried to put forward in my post #10. Same word may be used to mean different things, and by careful choice of words it is possible to arouse emotions for one meaning of the word on the basis of its association with another meaning, which may also be more widely understood meaning.

Writer of post #9 goes on to explain in post #11:

And by truth, I mean ...

and then also says:

I don't think we'll ever arrive at absolute truths.

I wonder what what non-absolute truth is. If it means partial truth, then it is also partial lie or falsehood. I think we can avoid all this confusion by using the word knowledge for what mrsdelossantos means by truth, and the word truth for what mrsdelossantos calls absolute truth.

A major danger with science is that we may not like the truth it discovers. Science can throw some major punches at the human race's self image.

In the next couple of centuries it is perfectly possible science will prove that the human brain is not capable of free will. Or it may prove that one race is more intelligent than another. Or that women are more intelligent than men. Or that you can tell if an unborn child will be good or bad from its DNA etc etc.

Throughout history, science has forced people to confront difficult truths, and they sometimes find it very very hard. The 'poster child' of this confrontation is of course Evolution. It is 150 years old (from before the American Civil War!) and still only 35% of Americans can accept it. 

Science is dangerous because we don't know what the answers will be until we find them, and then we have to come to adjust our image of ourselves.