The problem with 'truth' and 'objective' is the problem of absolutes - a pretty much impossible bar to reach outside of tautologies. Worse, it's difficult to see how you know you've arrived at 'truth' even if you manage to get there. The best we can achieve is 'consistency'.
-
-
-
It's the aim, isn't it? We cannot know anything for certain but having acknowledged that it is better to act as tho we can & develop medicines. I think it is objectively true I'm talking to you right now but you or I or both of us might not exist. Let's assume we do & proceed.
-
No. I'm not convinced that the unattainable should be an aim. It creates unnecessary confusion (the consequence of a belief in absolutes, for instance moral absolutes, is a good example). 'Consistency' (which allows for that which is 'relative') achieves everything you want.
-
We shouldn't try to get less wrong? About things like biology and history? We should just settle for being consistent whether we're consistently right or wrong?
-
Is it possible to be consistently wrong? That looks to me close to a contradiction. Probably the best you could get to being consistently wrong would be, ironically, through absolutist philosophies such as Plato's forms.
-
Absolutely. You can state a premise and then build on its tenets with great internal consistency for years - feminist epistemology - or centuries - theology - if necessary.
-
Those are good examples where people have sought for and found the 'truth'. Once you have the 'truth' anything that is 'inconsistent' with it can be ignored or rationalised away. It is harder to do that when 'consistency' rather than 'truth' is intrinsic to your project.
-
That depends on the epistemology for finding truth and the methods for testing it.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Physics is basically gradually developing models that are less wrong and more useful.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@BraneRunner What a strange idea. Philosophically literate scientists go for a best guess truth but there's only one.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Competing hypothesis in most cases both have a 'truth' value otherwise they would be utter nonsense. The specific cases where they are 'false' matters for their validity. Sometimes competing hypothesis co-exist because they both have a large domain of validity.
-
Case in point: Quantum theory and General Relativity
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
