# How do you know that things are true? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 26, 2013, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-know-that-things-are-true/659387 "2013-05-26T09:08:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-know-that-things-are-true/659387/21 "2013-05-29T00:14:55Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > For example, our understanding of science is always evolving, and there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that, for example, a lot of today’s medicine is going to look pretty crude in a few decade’s time. In a couple centuries, cutting off body parts to fight cancer will be seen as horribly crude. But in a couple decades? I hope. But there is, in fact, a doubt in my mind. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-know-that-things-are-true/659387/22 "2013-05-29T01:08:31Z")
I think that things that are “true” can stand up to scrutiny and conflicting opinions. Take evolution for example. Pro-evolution opinions tend to come from scientific research, trusted academic institutions, peer reviewed journals and learned scholars applying the scientific method. Anti-evolution opinions OTOH tend to be based on agenda-driven religious ideology. I come from a scientific education. Which means I understand how and why things work and to a certain extent, the history of how scientists came to discover how and why those things work. i.e. Einstein didn’t just pull the Theory of Relativity out of his ass. Through experimentation he found that Newton’s laws of motions didn’t work under certain circumstances. At some point, you have to trust that certain things are “true”. When you start thinking like “well how do we know ANYTHING is true”, then you are simply indulging in post-Matrix stoner dorm room fantasy bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-know-that-things-are-true/659387/23 "2013-05-29T01:53:01Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I come from a scientific education. Which means I understand how and why things work and to a certain extent, the history of how scientists came to discover how and why those things work. I recommend: [Einstein’s Luck: The Truth behind Some of the Greatest Scientific Discoveries](http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0198607199) I’m pro-science. But there’s good reason to consider scientific truths tentative. I know when you say that, some creationists feel vindicated. But it takes so little for people to feel vindicated in their beliefs that they are going to feel vindicated anyway. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-know-that-things-are-true/659387/24 "2013-05-29T02:09:27Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > More recently I tried the same analysis of climate science. It quickly became clear that I could not understand the science without some very serious study plus a far better understanding of statistics. It was pretty dense science. But I found the same three points mentioned above. > > We can’t treat scientific results as incontrovertible truth; we have to take them as the best understanding that we have at present. As mentioned in posts above, most scientific theories are heavily used to obtain practical results, and this includes the theory of evolution. (Not so much climate science, at least, yet.) You missed a lot then. https://www.youtube.com/embed/OJ6Z04VJDco?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque&list=UUljE1ODdSF7LS9xx9eWq0GQ > [@Learjeff](#): > > When a theory is accepted by all the world’s major scientific organizations, we can take them as the concensus. The concensus may be incorrect, but from a practical standpoint, the burden of proof is on those who object. Indeed. > **[Climate change](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming#Scientific_consensus)** > > Climate change, also known as anthropogenic (or human-caused) global warming,\[note 2\] is the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its related effects. Global-warming denialism refers to claims — mostly funded by the... I like the point made by Rationalwiki: > [@](#): > > National or international scientific bodies that \*\*reject \*\*anthropogenic global warming: > [Tumbleweeds roll by] ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2013, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-know-that-things-are-true/659387/25 "2013-05-29T02:34:46Z")
One item I like to mention when discussions like this come is how to identify good resources, that is, groups that check where the truth exists in a general way and looking at many topics like the OP wonders. One test I like to do is to see how the group deals with an item that I know has the consensus of the scientific world in their favor and that many of an ideological bent **like mine** mostly oppose, and one example is the use of Genetic engineering in our food. \* So how good is a previously used resource like the just mentioned Rational Wiki is on avoiding ideological traps and just going all Greenpeace on us? They do a good job on bruising the opponents of GMO: > **[Genetic modification](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Genetic_modification)** > > Genetic modification is the manipulation of an organism's genes to introduce particular traits. All methods of breeding modify the genes, but the technique that is usually implied by the term "genetic modification," and that attracts the greatest... > [@](#): > > So far, all evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of safety of GM foods for human consumption.[29][30] A wide variety of reputable organizations have stated that genetically modified foods are safe to eat, including the US National Academies of Sciences[31], the American Association for the Advancement of Science[32], the European Commission[33], and many more. Some articles even argue that the repression of GM foods by the environmental movement is the real problem.[34] At least one high-profile environmentalist has changed his anti-GMO stance as a result of learning the actual science.[35] (Did he simply sell out to Monsanto? Every anti-GMO blogger at the time thought so, but evidence has not been forthcoming.) If anything, the environmental issues are far more worthy of concern than health issues, despite what many anti-GM activists seem to think. However, the hardcore activists are blind to the evidence, and have managed to successfully deny the evidence for the 19 years that GM crops have been grown in the US. - (This is actually a so-so example, it is true that a good number of the loud voices against GMO are coming from the left, but regarding science there are many researchers looking at GMO like Dr. Paul Nurse, cancer researcher, that are leftists and defenders of GMO, and science people like him pointed before that this issue is not just scary for left leaning people) ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2013, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-know-that-things-are-true/659387/26 "2013-05-30T01:28:21Z")
I am unimpressed by the argument that all scientific findings and theories are suspect if you can point to some benefit accruing from espousing them. Every position pro and con can be argued to involve a degree of self-interest. Constantly whining about “conflicts of interest” often is a cover for one’s laziness and lack of critical thinking skills. If you don’t make the effort to study the subject and aren’t capable of understanding basic principles of critical thinking, you need to defer to those who have made such efforts and have the brains to make logical conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2013, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-know-that-things-are-true/659387/27 "2013-05-30T18:04:57Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > I recommend: > > [Einstein’s Luck: The Truth behind Some of the Greatest Scientific Discoveries](http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0198607199) Thanks – looks interesting and I’ll be sure to read it. I’ve read a handful or so of books on the history of science, and my favorite continues to be Kunh’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. But first I have 1500 pages of Twain, and then Clausewitz. So much to read, so little time! I might cut Twain short. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > You missed a lot then. Can you clarify/amplify? Great [video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco&list=UUljE1ODdSF7LS9xx9eWq0GQ&index=3)! However, the critics I was trying to asses were attacking the kinds of evidence provided in that video. The best resource I found for both good criticism and responses was one by the defenders of the IPCC conclusions (don’t remember the site now). The criticism was quite technical, and the responses went over my head. If I’ve missed practical applications of climate theory that we benefit from, I’d like to know about them. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > I am unimpressed by the argument that all scientific findings and theories are suspect if you can point to some benefit accruing from espousing them. That’s not quite the argument. > [@](#): > > Every position pro and con can be argued to involve a degree of self-interest. You’re right that this smacks of ad-hominem. It’s not a reason for discrediting a view, but it is a reason for being extra suspicious, especially when the overwhelming majority of those who espouse a view have an agenda. Of course, as reasonable skeptics, we should be suspicious as a matter of habit. But we have to learn from others, so it’s most fruitful to – at least at first – learn the consensus view. (Kuhn points out that many of the paradigm-shifters come from outside the fold, so it’s good that not everyone follows this path, but it’s likely to be best for those of us who don’t plan to be experts but rather want an intelligent layman’s understanding.) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2013, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-know-that-things-are-true/659387/28 "2013-05-30T20:18:01Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Can you clarify/amplify? Great [video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco&list=UUljE1ODdSF7LS9xx9eWq0GQ&index=3)! However, the critics I was trying to asses were attacking the kinds of evidence provided in that video. The best resource I found for both good criticism and responses was one by the defenders of the IPCC conclusions (don’t remember the site now). The criticism was quite technical, and the responses went over my head. > > If I’ve missed practical applications of climate theory that we benefit from, I’d like to know about them. The clarification was in the rest, it is actually the consensus view that human caused global warming is a problem that is getting worse, > **[The 97% consensus on global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm)** > > \That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing... It has been my experience that just like creationists do, fake skeptics of AGW rely on the tactic of telling all people that there is an ongoing controversy in scientific organizations, many people that study pseudoscience movements can tell you the reason, because once people become aware of what are the actual levels of the experts agreeing on something then most people follow the advise of science. The problem in assuming that the critics already attacked that video is that they could not, it was just released, what you are missing is that the video from Science writer Peter Hadfield is a \*\*reply \*\*to those critics’ attacks to already agreed by many researchers climate science findings. As for benefits, where I live there is a very good example of an ongoing benefit that is not mentioned by the skeptics, you see, even if many right wing politicians claim to deny AGW they usually\* do not interfere with local planners when scientists tell them what the most likely outcome is for the southwest or other regions in a warming world, so currently projects to deal with the expected shortages of water are being constructed around Phoenix and other south west states. \*Usually, because sometimes the denial is strong. > **[Difference Engine: Canute's courtiers](https://www.economist.com/babbage/2012/06/29/difference-engine-canutes-courtiers)** > > Despite political denials, sea levels are rising faster than ever > [@](#): > > ONE should applaud the leaders of North Carolina’s coastal community for bringing a little light relief to these dismal days. Aghast at a state commission’s scientific findings about the local sea level rising 39 inches (or one metre, as it is known to the rest of the world) by 2100, coastal business leaders and property developers pressured the state’s legislators into banning all sea-level projections based on climate-change data. As a result, House Bill 819 would require future projections to use only historical data. “N.C. considers making sea-level rise illegal,” joked Stephen Colbert, a popular television comedian. > > Like King Canute’s sycophantic courtiers, who suggested their monarch was so powerful he could command the rising tide to retreat, the bill’s backers would annul the laws of nature. By ignoring climate change, they reckon the increase will be eight inches at most. A sea-level rise of 39 inches “could quite frankly kill development on the coast”, a business leader admitted. A rise that high would threaten 2,000 square miles of desirable coastline, sending property values plummeting and insurance rates sky high. Ocean views can account for as much as 60% of the value of beach-front property. > > The News & Observer of Raleigh labelled House Bill 819 “a burst of legislative folly”. Having become the laughing-stock of the country, North Carolina’s legislature is now reworking the bill, inserting the “need for additional studies” that will take three to four years to complete. That should get embarrassed law-makers off the hook for the time being. Nevertheless, a moratorium is to be slapped on the 39-inch figure. > > Whether North Carolina’s officials approve or not, though, there can be no denying that sea levels around the world are rising rapidly, especially along the Atlantic coast of America. In the past century, the global climate has warmed by about 1ºC. And as the Earth has become warmer, the sea level has risen by one or two millimetres a year. > > Lately, however, this rise has put on a spurt. Satellite observations over the past two decades record an increase of three to four millimetres a year. Like it or not, the only explanation for this acceleration is the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted by human activity. The benefits should be clear, only the ones denying the changes that are very likely to come will have to pay dearly for being unprepared. Or course, to prevent the situation from getting even worse, we have to control our emissions. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2013, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-know-that-things-are-true/659387/29 "2013-05-30T22:25:12Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Verifiability is important even if, as a practical matter, you’re not going to actually verify the claim yourself. The fact that a person is willing to explain how a claim can be verified means he thinks his claim would stand up to that test. That only holds if the person doesn’t expect you not to take them up on their offer to verify. Look at all the scams and myths that circulate with “I was sure this was made up, but Snopes verified it!” when Snopes did nothing of the kind. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2013, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-know-that-things-are-true/659387/30 "2013-05-31T13:16:49Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > I am unimpressed by the argument that all scientific findings and theories are suspect if you can point to some benefit accruing from espousing them. > > Every position pro and con can be argued to involve a degree of self-interest. > > Constantly whining about “conflicts of interest” often is a cover for one’s laziness and lack of critical thinking skills. > > If you don’t make the effort to study the subject and aren’t capable of understanding basic principles of critical thinking, you need to defer to those who have made such efforts and have the brains to make logical conclusions. That (flawed) argument is constantly dragged out in the threads about pit bulls. If a thread goes on long enough, someone inevitably says “You are only defending pit bulls because you own (live with) them! I am objective because I do not have any relationship with pit bulls!” I see that people are suspicious of bias, but, in a sense, that argument is “You know about this subject from direct experience, whereas I have no direct experience myself – I know more than you do!” > [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > That only holds if the person doesn’t expect you not to take them up on their offer to verify. Look at all the scams and myths that circulate with “I was sure this was made up, but Snopes verified it!” when Snopes did nothing of the kind. Yes, people can bluff using that technique, and hope you don’t call them on it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-you-know-that-things-are-true/659387.md?page=1)