# Can Science ever find the Truth? (not a creationist debate) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 3, 2000, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-ever-find-the-truth-not-a-creationist-debate/17917 "2000-04-03T05:27:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![I\_am\_the\_ONE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@I\_am\_the\_ONE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_am_the_ONE)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2000, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-ever-find-the-truth-not-a-creationist-debate/17917/61 "2000-04-09T07:39:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by matt\_mcl: > \*\*Science can find some truth, but not all truth. The purpose of science, or indeed any reason-based endeavour, is to take facts and come out with incontrovertible answers, which can then be made into incontrovertible predictions. > > Humans having free will, however, we are not subject to incontrovertible predictions, which basically means (à la Noam Chomsky) that the whole idea of social “science” is b.s. > > Reason and science generally are Very Good Things. But we seem to be mired in this large pit of rationalism, or what John Ralston Saul calls the dictatorship of reason, in which reason thinks it all dat and assums that anything it can’t describe doesn’t exist and that in any disagreement between reason and reality, reality is wrong. It has a pretty noble basis for saying so; after all, the rise of reason during the Renaissance and Enlightenment helped us out of the Dark Ages. But that was because the addition of reason completed a balance which was missing a counterweight. Since the other weights (i.e. the other human qualities) have been removed, reason has become a dictatorship. > > The problem with reason is that when in a dictatorship position, it tries to convince you that it is right, it is the only right answer, that we cannot help but agree with it, that we should give in and let reason solve everything. Abdicating our human sentience to let reason guide us deterministically is no different than abdicating our sentience to the Bible or to any other ideology. We have to make our own decisions; to let anything else - anything - make our decisions for us is to give up on being human. > > Reason is wonderful, but like everything else it has to be balanced, and like everything else it is not the panacea and the answer to everything.\*\* It is interesting to me that you would indict a form which you exploit so well. Reason is the one thread that holds our, indeed all, society together. To be very socially reasonable is to throw such a caveat in your statement as you have (about moderation) . Your disseration to somehow limit reason is overtly filled with what you sought to moderate. Perhaps I misss the point. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2000, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-ever-find-the-truth-not-a-creationist-debate/17917/62 "2000-04-09T16:48:00Z")
> [@](#): > > So if you decide that murder, robbery and rape are in accordance with your own sentience and your own soul, I should accept that as an equallyl valid ethic to my own? Now you’re asking me to accept a bizarre conclusion! No, you shouldn’t accept it as an equally valid ethic to your own; you should fight against such actions as strenuously as you can, in accordance with **your** system of ethics. Just like I know that some people hold beliefs over somewhat more controversial matters than I do, but I still fight believing in the truth of my beliefs. Just because other people have different opinions doesn’t mean you’re not entitled to your own or that you shouldn’t fight for what you believe in. I do every day. There’s nothing wrong with believing that your ethical beliefs more closely approach truth than other people’s, as long as you’re open to doubt. Frankly, if you think your beliefs aren’t the closest to the truth, why don’t you believe differently? > [@](#): > > It is interesting to me that you would indict a form which you exploit so well. I don’t indict reason. Reason, as I have been at pains to say and as I said in the very paragraph you cite, is very important and is a mode of human sentience. However, it is not the only mode, and treating it as the only valid way for humans to think and as a philosopher’s stone that turns base metals into gold is a recipe for the irrational. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2000, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-ever-find-the-truth-not-a-creationist-debate/17917/63 "2000-04-10T05:00:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Ethics are negotiated and again, there is no consistent basis for negotiation than Science and reason. As I’ve been at pains to point out, science and reason have no ethical content. They are a consistent basis for negotiation, but they cannot be the origins of ethical belief. The only way for society to come up with ethics with any real ethical content is through humanist discourse. Otherwise they are nothing more than amoral physical laws or determinist dogma. ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2000, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-ever-find-the-truth-not-a-creationist-debate/17917/64 "2000-04-09T21:30:00Z")
**matt\_mcl:** > [@](#): > > No, you shouldn’t accept it as an equally valid ethic to your own; you should fight against such actions as strenuously as you can, in accordance with your system of ethics. On what basis should we fight? Pistols at sunrise? No, I claim that if our ethics differ, we should resolve those differences in the field of _reason_. > [@](#): > > There’s nothing wrong with believing that your ethical beliefs more closely approach truth than other people’s, as long as you’re open to doubt. Frankly, if you think your beliefs aren’t the closest to the truth, why don’t you believe differently? I hold my ethical beliefs closest to the truth because they seem **reasonable** : I have reasons for holding them, and those reasons appear valid. I’m subservient to rationality in the same way that I’m subservient to the law of gravity. Neither hampers my will, they merely provide the field on which my will operates. > [@](#): > > As I’ve been at pains to point out, science and reason have no ethical content. No, you’ve **asserted** that fact, not yet proven it. > [@](#): > > They are a consistent basis for negotiation, but they cannot be the origins of ethical belief. The only way for society to come up with ethics with any real ethical content is through humanist discourse. Otherwise they are nothing more than amoral physical laws or determinist dogma. On what basis should we engage in discourse? Discourse is usually concerned with **reasonable debate**. You say yourself that “they are a consistent basis for negotiation” (i.e. discourse). Is there another form of discourse to which you are referring? * * * Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2000, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-ever-find-the-truth-not-a-creationist-debate/17917/65 "2000-04-10T07:06:00Z")
> [@](#): > > On what basis should we fight? Pistols at sunrise? No, I claim that if our ethics differ, we should resolve those differences in the field of reason. That makes no sense. If, as you claim, ethics are derived from reason, they ought not to differ, since the same facts are being treated. On the other hand, if ethics do differ and therefore differ on grounds other than rational ones, then reason is of limited utility (not ‘no utility’) in discussions about ethics. No, you’ve asserted that fact, not yet proven it. You seem to have missed where I wrote this. I’d appreciate it if you could respond to it at some point. > [@](#): > > **(matt\_mcl)** You are fooling yourself. All you can do with reason and the sciences is bring up a list of facts. You need something else to give those facts ethical weight. Even Chomsky, who believes that we can get a list of distinctive human needs from biology, acknowledges that we still need to give those facts ethical weight. If we determine that humans have a distinctive need to be free, for example, we still need to make the arbitrary and therefore sentient and free-will determination that human needs ought to be met. Natural science contains no ethics at all, which is why we can’t say that lions are evil for hunting wildebeests even though we might say that it would be evil for us to do so. It’s also the reason why social Darwinism is such an appalling philosophy - because it contains no ethical weight, being based solely on natural science. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2000, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-ever-find-the-truth-not-a-creationist-debate/17917/66 "2000-04-10T07:07:00Z")
Whoops. Sorry. This > [@](#): > > No, you’ve asserted that fact, not yet proven it. should have been in quotes in my message above; it’s a quotation from singledad. ---
**Author:** ![the\_first\_supraliminal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f475e1/32.png) [@the\_first\_supraliminal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_first_supraliminal)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2000, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-ever-find-the-truth-not-a-creationist-debate/17917/67 "2000-04-10T14:09:00Z")
> [@](#): > > There is no such thing as THE TRUTH. –Singledad It’s funny, I never thought a pragmatic person such as you would ever say that. That’s a statement some (aghast) philosopher would say. Also, > [@](#): > > Science does not give us the TRUTH. It gives us ways to make predictions and consistent descriptions. I agree/disagree. Science gives us the truth _according to us_. Taking the assumption that our observations are limited, we will never know the REAL truth, whatever that is. Actually, I take back that back. Philosophers should agree that there is such a thing as TRUTH. We’ve defined it, therefore it must exist. Huh? * * * There’s always another beer. ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2000, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-ever-find-the-truth-not-a-creationist-debate/17917/68 "2000-04-10T18:29:00Z")
**matt\_mcl:** > [@](#): > > On the other hand, if ethics do differ and therefore differ on grounds other than rational ones, then reason is of limited utility (not ‘no utility’) in discussions about ethics. Rationality is more than just physics and mathematics. It’s about evaluating creative ideas on the basis of logical deduction. Utilitarianism is a perfectly good basis for the rational discussion of ethics. It’s not “grounds _other_ rational ones” (emphasis added), it’s one of many rational grounds. [quote] You are fooling yourself. All you can do with reason and the sciences is bring up a list of facts. You need something else to give those facts ethical weight. [quote] I would agree that science does not accept ethics as a **presumption** , but it can deal with ethics as a **consequence** of observations of psychology. It is true indeed that _facts_ have no ethical weight. Of course they don’t. They are true regardless of our ethical opinion of them. For instance it is a _fact_ that I will almost certainly die of disease, accident or old age. Whether I _ethically agree_ with that fact has no bearing on its truth. But real ethics _derive_ from facts. 1. Fact: human beings are substantially similar to each other. Logical deduction: What is intolerable to one should be intolerable to all. 2. Fact: One human being is powerless, many humans cooperating are powerful. Deduction: It is useful for an individual to trade some of his freedom for the power of cooperation. 3. Fact: Human beings feel pain; they almost always find such a feeling highly undesirable. Deduction: (including fact 1), One should not cause another pain. The fact are the facts. Like them or not, they are true of their own accord, and their truth is verified by consistent observation. Our deductions _create_ our ethics. The quality of our interpretation of the facts and the correctness of our deductions are experimentally verified, for example, by observations of the longevity of a particular society. > [@](#): > > If we determine that humans have a distinctive need to be free, for example, we still need to make the arbitrary and therefore sentient and free-will determination that human needs ought to be met. That’s a rational deduction from a factual observation. I’m not sure what your objection is here. > [@](#): > > Natural science contains no ethics at all, which is why we can’t say that lions are evil for hunting wildebeests even though we might say that it would be evil for us to do so. _Animal behaviorism_ does not contain ethical deductions. It doesn’t use QM, or thermodynamics either. So what? > [@](#): > > It’s also the reason why social Darwinism is such an appalling philosophy - because it contains no ethical weight, being based solely on natural science. Social Darwinism is appalling because it ignores an seemingly obvious fact: human beings are substantially similar to each other. Even so, it is indeed a system of ethics (albeit a flawed one): rationally deduced rules of social behavior. **Beeruser:** > [@](#): > > It’s funny, I never thought a pragmatic person such as you would ever say that. > > That’s a statement some (aghast) philosopher would say. I’m a pragmatic person _because_ I’ve determined philosophically that the **TRUTH** (according to the OP) can’t be reliably distinguished. Or is it the other way around? 😉 > [@](#): > > Taking the assumption that our observations are limited, we will never know the REAL truth, whatever that is. The REAL truth (supposing such a thing exists, which I deny) is what the OP asks for. > [@](#): > > Actually, I take back that back. Philosophers should agree that there is such a thing as TRUTH. We’ve defined it, therefore it must exist. Huh? Defining something is not proof of its existence, it’s not even proof of its determinability. I can _define_ the statement in system S: “This statement cannot be proved in system S”, but that doesn’t mean that its either true or even determinable (in fact, Godel proved it is indeed non-determinable). * * * Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2000, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-ever-find-the-truth-not-a-creationist-debate/17917/69 "2000-04-10T20:19:00Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. Fact: human beings are substantially similar to each other. > Logical deduction: What is intolerable to one should be intolerable to all. > 2. Fact: Human beings feel pain; they almost always find such a feeling highly undesirable. > Deduction: (including fact 1), One should not cause another pain. Just because you’ve proven that you’d find something intolerable if it was done to you doesn’t mean that you’ve proven you ought not to do it to someone else. You could use it to support such a claim, but it doesn’t follow logically. I’m sorry, you cannot take facts, add reason, and derive ethics. You have to add some ethical content somewhere in the mix, and you have to do that by exercising your sentience. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2000, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-ever-find-the-truth-not-a-creationist-debate/17917/70 "2000-04-10T20:22:00Z")
Clarification: So ethics derive from facts. Well, obviously. It would be stupid to come up with a set of ethics that have no relation to the real world. But they do not derive ONLY from facts. You have to add ethical weight by yourself! That’s my entire point. If your only cognitive faculty were a faculty of reason, you could not derive any ethics from that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-science-ever-find-the-truth-not-a-creationist-debate/17917.md?page=3)