While listening to a religious debate recently, I heard one of the debates exclaim, “Science is the only way that the truth can be known!”
There were several things about that statement that I found incongruous, but there one tning in particular that stood out. Can anyone guess what it is?
There’s really nothing incongrous about the statement. It’s merely wrong.
Science works with theories, not truths. When a theory withstands scrutiny, scientists have confidence that it reflects reality, but they wouldn’t call it a truth.
And I think this post would be better served in the Great Debates forum.
No, there is an incongruity. Think about it.
Of course, your comments about the limitations of science are also correct.
Yeah, the incongruity is, Christian Science. I suspect you may be laboring under an incomplete, or false, definition of science, although it is difficult to tell since you’ve failed to provide a defintion. So …
Science (Latin scientia, from scire,”to know”), term used to denote systematized knowledge in any field, but applied usually to the organization of objectively verifiable sense experience. The pursuit of knowledge in this context is known as pure science, to distinguish it from applied science, which is the search for practical uses of scientific knowledge, and from technology, through which applications are realized.
And I agree, this would be better served in Great Debates.
[Edited by UncleBeer on 09-04-2001 at 06:56 AM]
To amplify further: Science deals in knowledge, not truth.
Actually, from my own research, I have found that science deals with neither. It mostly deals with half-truths, and keeping true knowledge away from people.
Seethruart
Hiding true knowledge, sheesh. Is it science that hid your guestbook then eh?
Of course, you’ve amply demonstrated that you wouldn’t know research, science, knowledge, or truth if they walked up to you carrying a large banner reading “Look at us” whilst singing the theme from Mighty Mouse and firing off clueflares.
But thanks for your input.
Nobody has caught the incongruity yet.
Here it is. Is science the only way to know the truth? If so, then what scientific technique do you use to determine that science is the only way to know the truth?
The original claim is NOT scientific. Ergo, it is self-refuting.
Not so.
Please note that I never even mentioned Christianity in my post. I did say that I heard this statement in the context of a religious debate, but the statement itself makes contains an incongruity that is non-religious in nature.
Once more, with feeling . . .
Science does not purport to reveal Truth.
And I’m not denying that. As I said, there are several problems with the claim in question. Several problems. Your objection is just one such example.
However, the real incongruity of that statement (as opposed to mere error) rests in the fact that it contradicts itself… and that’s what I was hoping that people would catch.
Okeedoke. So where’s the debate?
OK, so some nimrod in a debate fired off an oversimplified sound byte. I don’t see anyone supporting the statement, so where’s the debate?
I disagree. I say it’s an axiomatic claim, that we either accept as self-evidently true, or reject as self-evidently false. Either way, where’s the contradiction?
Okay, let’s explain this again.
Statement A: Science is the only way to know the truth.
However, Statement A is not scientific. Ergo, Statement A contradicts itself.
If you’re going to claim that Statement A is true, then you must be prepared to prove it scientifically. If you can’t, then you have a contradiction on your hand.
It’s not just “oversimplified.” It’s self-contradictory and wrong on multiple counts (an erroneous understanding of science, for one thing).
That’s exactly why I originally posted this in MPSIMS, rather than Great Debates. I was asking people to identify the incongruity, which simply wasn’t a matter of great debate.
Er, no…one’s axioms are always exempt from proof within the system. That’s the difference between axioms and other statements. You have to use a sort of meta-science (philosophy) to investigate the axioms of science.
BTW, if it’s an axiomatic claim, then it is NOT scientifically established – which further proves my point that the statement is self-refuting.
Which, once again, proves my point. It shows that science is not the only way to know the truth. (Recognizing, of course, that science doesn’t really purport to do so.) Science assumes axiomatic statements to be true, since the truth of these statements can not be discerned using science!
In other words, if science assumes axiomatic statements to be true, then we can not legimately claim that the truth of these statements has been discerned scientifically!
The mere fact that one must resort to extra-scientific means (e.g. philosophy) in order to have science merely proves that the original claim is self-contradictory.