4 ms·
Truth is an anti-scientific concept. When you say something is the truth, you are saying no evidence can change your mind. Maybe there is some underlying truth,
by jltsiren 4y ago
Truth is an anti-scientific concept. When you say something is the truth, you are saying no evidence can change your mind. Maybe there is some underlying truth, but it seems to be out of our reach. And it's irrelevant anyway. The utility does not come from some metaphysical ponderings but from models that can explain phenomena and make reliable predictions.
- naasking 4y ago> Truth is an anti-scientific concept. There is no epistemic value to empirical evidence if the empirical evidence were not proxy to some truth. > When you say something is the truth, you are saying no evidence can change your mind No, "truth" is the proposition that will agree with all conceivable robust evidence. > Maybe there is some underlying truth, but it seems to be out of our reach. I disagree, and I already mentioned Solomonoff Induction that I think disproves this. > The utility does not come from some metaphysical ponderings but from models that can explain phenomena and make reliable predictions. I disagree as well. Plenty of empirical evidence is useful without a model. For instance, taxonomy in biology was very useful before we knew of genes or even evolution. The actual utility here is clearly truth, whether that be individual facts or whole theories.