> I think all your classmates will be shocked and dismayed to hear what you're claiming in their name. You think wrong. In fact, I know for a fact that if I ha

> I think all your classmates will be shocked and dismayed to hear what you're claiming in their name. You think wrong. In fact, I know for a fact that if I had asserted the sort of stuff that you are asserting in a public space in my dorm when I was a student, that I would have been showered for the offense. > My statement about the relation of science and truth is hardly controversial, It's not controversial; it is patently wrong. > and it is not a meaningful debate topic among the educated. It's not a topic of debate amongst most scientists because most scientists don't typically debate such issues of philosophy. In my experience, if you asserted that science did not aim for truth, most scientists would just roll their eyes and get back to work. > Now I ask that you read the above quotation carefully and repeatedly until it sinks in. Please, spare me! > 1. All scientific theories must be falsifiable by new evidence. Yes, that is true. > 2. By definition, truths cannot be falsified. Putative truths can certainly be falsified (or at least the sort that are falsifiable can be), and scientific theories are putative truths. Putative truths that turn out to be true, as it turns out will never be falsified, despite their falsifiability. Saying that a scientific theory can be falsified does not mean that we know it is false. It means that we can't know for certain that it is 100% true. But that is a far cry from the assertion that science does not aim for truth. > 3. Therefore science cannot be a source of truth. Nonsense. Just because we cannot know for sure that a scientific theory represents a true proposition, does not mean that it doesn't represent a true proposition. If a certain theory actually represents a true proposition, then it was a source of truth. Furthermore, scientific theories, even when they don't represent propositions that are 100% true do let us make true predictions. For instance, we know that in some sense, Einstein's theory of gravity cannot in some sense represent a true proposition, but in every other respect, it is as true as any truth we have ever known. 100% of the predictions made by this theory of gravity have turned out to be TRUE. So to say that science cannot be a source of truth is utter nonsense. In this case, it has been an unerring source of truth, more true than anything else the world has ever known. Likewise for quantum mechanics. > Which part of the above didn't you understand? I understand it all, and what I understand is you are in the thrall of your own specious argument. >This is not my notion, it is how science is defined -- see above. There's no one definition of science. > Ah. Now I see the problem. You don't understand what "truth" means. Truth is not an approximation, accurate or otherwise -- it is a superlative statement of fact. That is not what "truth" means. You are asserting falsities with an air authority, nothing more. A true proposition is a statement of fact. There are many other forms of truth, and multiple senses of the word "true". A compass can be true if it points you in the right direction. A clock can be true even when it is never perfectly accurate. A scientific theory can be true when it lets you build TV sets that work, or predict that a pencil will fall when dropped. "True proposition" is not the only meaning of true, and furthermore, even if you were going to apply only that definition of true to scientific theories, you have neglected that even "false" theories lets us construct many true propositions. > Things that work are a form of truth. > Confirmed -- you're using a private definition of "truth". I most certainly am not. It is you who are. In fact, your notion of truth is utterly naive. > People used willow bark to cure headaches for thousands of years before they had any idea why it worked. Is that truth? Yes, according to you. Yes, it is true that willow bark cured headaches for thousands of years. Did it cure them 100% of the time? Of course not. Still, it is true that it cured them. > Let's say I'm a quack doctor and I believe I have a cure for the common cold. My "cure", my "truth", is that I shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until he gets better. My "cure" always works -- it might take several days, but it's perfectly reliable -- it's a "truth". That is not true, because there is no correlation of cause and effect, other than perhaps due to the placebo effect, in which case that cure is true to the degree that the placebo effect is effective. > Self-respecting college graduates know better than to try to offer their academic status as an argument in support of their views. Nonsense. Credentials are useful or there would be no reason to ever get them. >A college degree is as much a licence to be articulately wrong as articulately right. Credentials of course don't guarantee correctness. But they often provide a reason to trust someone's opinion, or at least to pay attention.