. ."John W. Randal"
Karen wrote:
P.S. Sarcasm may be overrated but hell, everything is overrated these days.
Too true...
--- John
. .Zach Garland
Truth is overrated.
. .Andrew Plumb
Truth is entirely subjective. There is no one truth.
A.
. .Zach Garland
But is not the fact that there is no one truth a truth itself?
. .Andrew Plumb
Yup, but not the only interpretation of truth. :-) That's the fun of it all, there are three basic aspects to truth. That which you hold to be the truth, that I which hold as the truth, and that which simply "is" the Truth. That third aspect is the clincher... Schroedinger's Cat prancing the edge, waiting...
A.
. .Al Schroeder
Andrew wrote:
Truth is entirely subjective. There is no one truth.
Then the scientists might as well hang it up, since truth is entirely "subjective". Luckily...they don't.--Al.
. ."R. Zach Garland"
Andrew Plumb wrote:
... Schroedinger's Cat prancing the edge, waiting...
One of the more fun 'debates' my wife and I have ever had was regarding that cat. She was saying if you put the cat into a box with no holes in it, wait awhile and then open the box, the cat is either alive or dead, but until you open the box, it's in a state of flux. It's neither alive nor dead.
I disagreed. If you didn't put holes in the box for air, it's dead. Especially if you spend an hour arguing about it before you open the damn box.
I mean maybe there's my truth, and there's your truth, and that's all subjective, but meanwhile there's this frantic little cat freaking out in the dark box trying to get out. And it don't give a crap. It just wants to breathe, y'know?
There are some people who say the glass is half empty. Some say the glass is half full. Then there are people who walk up to the other two kinds of people, take the glass, drink it, and then walk away.
Bastards. *smirk*
. .Gabby Hon
Al wrote:
Then the scientists might as well hang it up, since truth is entirely "subjective".
no, but scientists do work with the understanding that their theories and laws are, in a chaotic universe, entirely subject to change should they discover new information. science is not absolute.
gabby
. .Zach Garland
The day scientists all agree, and they find the absolute truths of the universe, the day they are all out of a job, so that ain't never gonna happen.
. .Al Schroeder
Gabby wrote:
no, but scientists do work with the understanding that their theories and laws are, in a chaotic universe, entirely subject to change should they discover new information. science is not absolute.
Wellll...I would phrase it differently. They are aware that their theories and laws are approximations of the truth, and thus subject to change as new information is introduced. They don't think all of the sudden, for instance, the law of conservation of mass/energy will stop. They don't doubt there's an ultimate reality in most things (until we get into quantum mechanics, and there, admittedly, all bets are off) just that our UNDERSTANDING of such is incomplete.
The earth went around the sun whether we believed Ptolemy or Copernicus, in other words.--Al.
. ."Lynda (Catty) Bustilloz"
A scientist who has decided he *knows* the truth has no option but to hang it up. The understanding that it is subjective (dependant upon the information currently available, and subject to re-evaluation upon more evidence) is what fuels the scientific process.
. .Al Schroeder
Exactly. But they do that to get closer and closer to the truth, but they don't say the truth is "entirely subjective", the way, ohhh, one's taste in poetry or one's taste in clothes are. They are aware they don't have the truth, but that they are getting closer and closer to it. (Unless we get deceived by a really bad theorem, which will sooner or later be disproved by the scientific theory.)
. .Carolyn L Burke
Hmmm... The Duhem-Quine thesis (philosophers of science both) goes something like: when an anomolous 'fact' enters our collection of facts, and acts to falsify some one or more of our theories and beliefs, all are at stake. We will work to discard the smaller or easier theories, int he hopes that not all of our scientific collection of 'knowledge' will tumble.
How could it all tumble - let's say that the theory that turns out to be the one we must discard is the theory of how to make observations, or the theory that mathematics can be used to model physical phenomena.
So the Duhem-Quine thesis (around 1920 -1940) scares people.
Here's its schemata (you'll recognize it if you took any logic):
premise Theory of Observations (use of instruments) premise Mathematics premise General Reletivity premise Optics . etc .Assume all premises are true. If Fact A is true, everything is cool. If it is false, then it is not deducible from the premises. So what does this mean?? At least one premise is false. But which one?!!! You can to guess. Or run many more experiments (crucial experiments) and try to isolate one of the theories -or one par tof a theory) to alter. Or you could decide to drop one of the big ones. This latter is the most exciting hting you could be forced to do, and yet much of our knowledge would be effected.. -------- ------------------- conclusion recent observation, call it Fact A
Scientists are always sitting beside this guillotine of doubt.
We might yet have to discard the claim that the earth circles the sun... in order to protect some other claim that becomes more crucial! Scary but true!
C
. ."Lynda (Catty) Bustilloz"
To: Carolyn L Burke
Now THAT sounds like the way humans tend to be regarding their personal 'truths' as well. It may be that the reason why times of change (even positive change) are so stressful is because the more variables changes....shaking our assumptions of what is 'normal' while we adjust...the more insecure every facet of our lives become.
Thanks for sharing that...
(off to mull....)
. .Al Schroeder
All of this was very interesting, Carolyn, and obviously if there is an anomolous fact that cannot be fitted into the present schema, we are presupposing that there is a truth out there---I.e., something not subjective...that does not fit into our preconceptions.
I'll touch on the matter of what I consider the search for the truth and what not tonight. So that means (big thrill!) that it will tend to be philosophical and non-personal. But what is and what is not a truth DOES matter a lot to me....or rather, if there is a rock-solid "truth" out there to look for. Those who find such philosophical silliness to be useless would be better advised not to look at my nov 17th entry.
Al Schroeder
. .Carolyn L Burke
Yeah.. the whole thing *only* works if we assume that there is a way that the universe is. There is a truth to the matter, even if we don't or even cannot know it! Wihtout that assumption, you wouldn't want to be modeling with a logical schema since it is based on the notion that sentences are *either true or false or badly formed*. (Can you imagine diaries that had to meet this criteria!!!)
I'll try to peek at your Nov 17 entry on this stuff. I compiled the disucssion on truth here at carolyn.org/truth.html. I though the progression from fun bantering to serious philosophy quite impressive. I'll link your diary discussion in there too.
Carolyn
. .Al Schroeder's Nov 17th entry on the laws of nature
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .