Science as a Philosophy of Truth

Some preliminary issues before I continue with these really deranged posts of mine. You guys really have well-sounding opinions about this topic, and I really thank you all for stepping up and sharing upon this blog. Many people also think about such topics, but never found the conviction to actually stand up and make their views known. Some people even live a lifetime thinking they are alone with these thoughts and give up thinking altogether in an attempt to live a normal life. Please do continue with the responses, as we attempt to think what the others have labelled as the 'cheem stuff'



As noted, Science and Religion, and their philosophies in an attempt to explain the truth, would be next on the topic list now that we have made some sort of acknowledgement to the it's existence. Indeed, deep within- many people (realists) regard in varying degrees the existence of the truth. Yet, it is unique that Truth is a subject that we have to assume it's existence before seeking methods to re-affirm and define it. We shall now assume it's existence, and bearing in mind that we have yet to define it, attempt to further understand it from the Scientific point of view.



Science assumes the Truth, and hence all theories formulated the field of science tends to be true, or approximately true.



Indeed. We cannot say that a scientific theory- say Newton's first law of motion, is true unless we find ways to prove that this little statement is indeed co-related (or corresponding) to the actual Truth that "all lying or running dogs let live unless provoked by some insolent kid" (LOL). Indeed, this little truth cannot be the Truth unless proven by the theory of correspondence, held not to be false for a sitting period over the years- and backed up by sufficient amounts of evidence for it's cause. Yet it is notable that all scientific laws or 'truths' cannot even exist unless some form of hypothesis (an assumption of the existence of the truth) precedes it. Should Newton despaired in his attempts to seek the Truth of this law, then we would not have ever understood this truth of Truth.



This can also be evident in mathematics especially in the topic of Mathematical Induction, where we actually try to prove a certain mathematical truth from scratch and assumption. And in an attempt to prove that the given mathematical equation holds true for all values of N and X, we have to assume P(1) to be true and 'induce' further numerical substitutions until the assumption holds True. Should we not even assume P(1) to be true, there would be no need to prove the equation ( or in this time the Truth) to be True, wouldn't we?



From the to above examples, we can see how science assumes the truth before it proves it. However, it is even more notable regarding the methods Science tries to confirm the truth after the initial assumption and hypothesis. Thought processes and conclusions are derived logically from the initial speculation- (and ref. to the article 'There is a conflict between Science and Religion') The logic of natural science definitely denies the supernatural, spiritual, realities, values, or any form of values that appeal to illusory matters. In other words, cause and effect are the only explanations that link from thought to thought: from the initial assumption of the truth to the final 'Law' that the truth is indeed True.



Now, in this respect- certain problems and issues may arise. Cases of logic failure ( or what we call making geographical experiments on top of a giant magnet) may hamper, or 'warp' truth, especially when the knowledge of the Truth is still incomplete at this age. Just imagine a kid's game of 'passing the message' from the front to the back row. Certain 'Truths' of the information that was told to the first child may be lost in the chain of 'thought' and ' logical rephrasing', and the outcome message given by the last child at the back may be very different to the initial words. Logical linking may let two thoughts be similar or logical, but perhaps owing from the imperfections of the Human knowledge, just like the imperfections of the child, may lead logic to go 'awry' and lead to a conclusion that is very contrasting to the Objective Truth.



Moreover, it is evident from human history that science, being knowledge, may be warped owing to the society we live in. Ancient Greek philosophers had indeed made a costly mistake of assuming the Earth as the centre of the universe and regarding it as a Scientific Truth given by the observations and 'evidence' collected at that point of time, which actually points to it. They are indeed perfect in their chain of logical thoughts, but somehow their society, and philosophy, had 'warped' the logic away from the objective truth.



In these cases Science may seem to be imperfect in it's method on finding the truth.



Indeed, science has proven a formidable method in search to this truth- not only truth in terms of scientific theories, but also the bigger Truth that may deal with our lives and purpose. I believe there ought to be another method, not to be opposing to the Scientific method, but rather, complimentary to Science, to perfect the quest for the Truth. I think this method could be identified in the next topic I'll be addressing. It's most loyal advocate is Religion, and hence we'll consider Religion as a philosophy of Truth, and hopefully, integrate both theories and methods to piece together this undefined picture of the truth of Truth.