Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Fervent]

Science is a method (and it can also refer to the body of results stemming from application of that method). Trying to apply adjectives like "myopic" or "omniscient" to it doesn't make sense.

That's an idealized version of science. Science is what scientists do, and so if scientists are blind, myopic, or omniscient then science is either blind, myopic, or omniscient. I think we can reasonably rule out omniscient, but I'm not so sure we can so easily rule out science being more than blind leading the blind. And merrily they go along the way to fall into the pit.

 

[Fervent]

Then you've obviously not spent enough time looking through history at the things that were historically considered facts and then shown to be incorrect.

No, I'm quite aware of such things. But it's the language that I am concerned with, because common speech doesn't distinguish between factual and truthful.

As I said: truth is for the courts of law and justice. Facts are for science, but facts are also provisional. What might be factual today will be shown to be wrong the next.

Seems to me a word game. Facts that are possibly false aren't facts, unless you believe that it's possible for facts to change. Our understanding of facts may change, but the fact itself remains the same. And saying it is facts that science deals with blurs the meaning and seems to be nothing more than an attempt to identify it with truth while denying that it is looking for truth.

 

[BCP1928]

The point is simply that there's nothing to bridge the gap between the ontological definitions and the phenomenal theories. We talk about science in terms of ontology, but those ontological terms are either so wide that they can encompass all possible phenomenon and thus are meaningless, or we have no clue what sorts of limitations to place on such ontological ideas. There is often an acknowledgement that science doesn't deal with the truth, but then it is assumed that there is truth within the confines of science. But at the end of the day, it's nothing more than a fictional model that operates on principles that allow for quality research into hypothetical mechanical operations.

I still don't see your point.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, I'm quite aware of such things. But it's the language that I am concerned with, because common speech doesn't distinguish between factual and truthful.

Seems to me a word game. Facts that are possibly false aren't facts, unless you believe that it's possible for facts to change. Our understanding of facts may change, but the fact itself remains the same. And saying it is facts that science deals with blurs the meaning and seems to be nothing more than an attempt to identify it with truth while denying that it is looking for truth.

I'm calling that a you problem then.

 

[Fervent]

I still don't see your point.

My concern is the way that people tend to talk out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to science. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Fervent]

I'm calling that a you problem then.

What is the difference between fact and truth?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is a method (and it can also refer to the body of results stemming from application of that method). Trying to apply adjectives like "myopic" or "omniscient" to it doesn't make sense.

Would you know it, if it did?

And for the record, check out this post: 1823.

 

[BCP1928]

My concern is the way that people tend to talk out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to science. Nothing more, nothing less.

I see people making ontological assumptions about instrumentality. Why does that concern you?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What is the difference between fact and truth?

A fact is objective, can be verified and substantiated by evidence, but this also makes a fact provisional since new evidence can be brought to light to show that this fact is wrong.

A truth is a state of belief based on the ideas behind what we want to perceive as the universal reality, and as such can be changed from period to period in history or even from person to person in a single location in a point in time.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I said: truth is for the courts of law and justice.

Tell Jesus that.

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

 

[Fervent]

I see people making ontological assumptions about instrumentality. Why does that concern you?

The ontological assumptions interferes with recognizing the true ontological foundation. My concern is to not allow for excuses and force people to a point of admitting our true ignorance.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Tell Jesus that.

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Is God not justice?

 

[Fervent]

A fact is objective, can be verified and substantiated by evidence, but this also makes a fact provisional since new evidence can be brought to light to show that this fact is wrong.

A truth is a state of belief based on the ideas behind what we want to perceive as the universal reality, and as such can be changed from period to period in history or even from person to person in a single location in a point in time.

And here is why philosophy is important, because both of those definitions do not reflect how those words are used in practice.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And here is why philosophy is important, because both of those definitions do not reflect how those words are used in practice.

Not at all, since science only deals with facts, which laypeople take as truths.

 

[BCP1928]

The ontological assumptions interferes with recognizing the true ontological foundation. My concern is to not allow for excuses and force people to a point of admitting our true ignorance.

How do you determine the true ontological foundation?

 

[Fervent]

Not at all, since science only deals with facts, which laypeople take as truths.

Seems to be a confusion of words, since facts and truth are generally treated as basically the same thing.

How do you determine the true ontological foundation?

By learning its name.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Seems to be a confusion of words, since facts and truth are generally treated as basically the same thing.

Same with theory. Laypeople take theory of just mean something akin to a guess, while in actuality and in specific scientific parlance, a theory explains facts.

 

[BCP1928]

Seems to be a confusion of words, since facts and truth are generally treated as basically the same thing.

By learning its name.

OK, I'll bite. How do we learn its name?

 

[Fervent]

Same with theory. Laypeople take theory of just mean something akin to a guess, while in actuality and in specific scientific parlance, a theory explains facts.

That one's a bit more forgiveable, because it doesn't cause a fundamental confusion of what science does. And it's not just "laypeople" who don't seem to be able to distinguish between "provisional" facts and fact in common parlance. When we start talking about the terminology and creating a taxonomic structure, that's philosophy. And the point of philosophy is to clarify the words we use so that we are not mislead by terminology.

 

[Fervent]

OK, I'll bite. How do we learn its name?

By not being satisfied until we discover it. Ask, and it shall be answered. Seek, and you shall find.