4 ms·

>Truth is the realm of science alone. This statement isn't a scientifically based statement nor could it be one since science can't measure the truth-value of

by nemo 3y ago

>Truth is the realm of science alone. This statement isn't a scientifically based statement nor could it be one since science can't measure the truth-value of epistemological claims - your claim can't be true by your own standard.

feoren 3y ago
HN comments are small and my comments are limited by the amount of procrastination my day is able to endure. "Truth is the realm of science alone" is a lot of things significantly abbreviated into a pithy and over-simplified HN comment. You could levy the same criticism at almost everything anyone ever says on an internet forum, including "scientifically based statement" (whatever that means) and "science can't measure the truth-value of epistemological claims". I'm asserting that the only useful definition of the word "truth", and the core of the definition that almost everyone is actually grasping at when they talk about "truth", is the particular kind of truth that science seeks, and any other definition of "truth" inevitably leads to statements that would be "true" under that definition but clearly nonsensical. Basically if you want "truth" to act "truthy" in all the ways we expect "truth" to behave, then your definition of "truth" is exactly the one that is sought by science and nothing else (here I am including mathematics as a branch of science, even though it's probably better to think of it the other way around). Here's my definition of truth: the body of statements which are self-consistent with some set of pre-selected axioms. A false statement is one which is inconsistent with those axioms. Plenty of statements are neither (e.g. "this statement is false"). You claim this is not a "scientifically based statement", but really it's just a definition, plus an assertion that other definitions are not useful. The latter is actually falsifiable: show me a useful definition of "truth" that doesn't reduce to this definition. Of course I haven't given you the exact criteria for doing this nor evidence that my assertion is correct, but this is an HN comment; what do you really expect? > science can't measure the truth-value of epistemological claims I don't see why that should be true. I can claim to have certain knowledge and science can test me on those claims. If your definition of "epistemological claims" only includes those philosophy-ejaculate sentences that cannot be tested by science, then your definition is useless and boring.
- nemo 3y ago
  >If your definition of "epistemological claims" only includes those philosophy-ejaculate sentences that cannot be tested by science, then your definition is useless and boring. The entirety of your post above is comprised of sentences that cannot be tested by science. There's lots that can't be tested by science like mathematics (no mathematical truth has ever been proven by science), logic (no syllogism can be proved by science), epistemology (no claims about truth per se or what knowledge is per se or how one can gain knowledge can be proved by science), philosophy of science (most of your post was not science but the kind of blundered epistemology and philosophy of science folks who haven't studied the topics repeat), etc. The problems here have been hashed out by philosophers of science, worth re-examining your biases against primary forms of human reasoning here. Since science is rooted in mathematics and logic, hopefully you at least admit of the possibilities of truths there. And if you spend some time learning about these things and actually think them through, you'll eventually realize the inevitability that those truths can only. be meaningfully true if you have space for the possibility of other philosophic truths in spaces like epistemology. Worth considering if there's a possibility of ethical truth as well, might not be a great idea to throw that out.
  - feoren 3y ago
    > The entirety of your post above is comprised of sentences that cannot be tested by science. I've literally given you a falsifiability test. Most of my sentences are not "claims", only claims can be tested, and all of my claims can. > Since science is rooted in mathematics and logic, hopefully you at least admit of the possibilities of truths there Honestly this makes it clear you're not even reading my full comments, because I address this directly. Whatevs, nobody is obligated to read what I write, but if you haven't read it, why reply? > if you spend some time learning about these things and actually think them through > the kind of blundered epistemology and philosophy of science folks who haven't studied the topics repeat Gatekeeping and personal attacks. It takes a lot of hubris to believe that anyone who has reached a different conclusion than you must have not studied the subjects. "Well if you actually thought about this, you'd realize..." has never convinced anyone of anything except that you're clearly not worth talking to.

by nemo 3y ago

feoren 3y ago

HN comments are small and my comments are limited by the amount of procrastination my day is able to endure. "Truth is the realm of science alone" is a lot of things significantly abbreviated into a pithy and over-simplified HN comment. You could levy the same criticism at almost everything anyone ever says on an internet forum, including "scientifically based statement" (whatever that means) and "science can't measure the truth-value of epistemological claims". I'm asserting that the only useful definition of the word "truth", and the core of the definition that almost everyone is actually grasping at when they talk about "truth", is the particular kind of truth that science seeks, and any other definition of "truth" inevitably leads to statements that would be "true" under that definition but clearly nonsensical. Basically if you want "truth" to act "truthy" in all the ways we expect "truth" to behave, then your definition of "truth" is exactly the one that is sought by science and nothing else (here I am including mathematics as a branch of science, even though it's probably better to think of it the other way around). Here's my definition of truth: the body of statements which are self-consistent with some set of pre-selected axioms. A false statement is one which is inconsistent with those axioms. Plenty of statements are neither (e.g. "this statement is false"). You claim this is not a "scientifically based statement", but really it's just a definition, plus an assertion that other definitions are not useful. The latter is actually falsifiable: show me a useful definition of "truth" that doesn't reduce to this definition. Of course I haven't given you the exact criteria for doing this nor evidence that my assertion is correct, but this is an HN comment; what do you really expect? > science can't measure the truth-value of epistemological claims I don't see why that should be true. I can claim to have certain knowledge and science can test me on those claims. If your definition of "epistemological claims" only includes those philosophy-ejaculate sentences that cannot be tested by science, then your definition is useless and boring.

nemo 3y ago
>If your definition of "epistemological claims" only includes those philosophy-ejaculate sentences that cannot be tested by science, then your definition is useless and boring. The entirety of your post above is comprised of sentences that cannot be tested by science. There's lots that can't be tested by science like mathematics (no mathematical truth has ever been proven by science), logic (no syllogism can be proved by science), epistemology (no claims about truth per se or what knowledge is per se or how one can gain knowledge can be proved by science), philosophy of science (most of your post was not science but the kind of blundered epistemology and philosophy of science folks who haven't studied the topics repeat), etc. The problems here have been hashed out by philosophers of science, worth re-examining your biases against primary forms of human reasoning here. Since science is rooted in mathematics and logic, hopefully you at least admit of the possibilities of truths there. And if you spend some time learning about these things and actually think them through, you'll eventually realize the inevitability that those truths can only. be meaningfully true if you have space for the possibility of other philosophic truths in spaces like epistemology. Worth considering if there's a possibility of ethical truth as well, might not be a great idea to throw that out.
- feoren 3y ago
  > The entirety of your post above is comprised of sentences that cannot be tested by science. I've literally given you a falsifiability test. Most of my sentences are not "claims", only claims can be tested, and all of my claims can. > Since science is rooted in mathematics and logic, hopefully you at least admit of the possibilities of truths there Honestly this makes it clear you're not even reading my full comments, because I address this directly. Whatevs, nobody is obligated to read what I write, but if you haven't read it, why reply? > if you spend some time learning about these things and actually think them through > the kind of blundered epistemology and philosophy of science folks who haven't studied the topics repeat Gatekeeping and personal attacks. It takes a lot of hubris to believe that anyone who has reached a different conclusion than you must have not studied the subjects. "Well if you actually thought about this, you'd realize..." has never convinced anyone of anything except that you're clearly not worth talking to.