Re: Science vs Truth ?

Ian Goddard (
Wed, 29 Apr 1998 22:33:04 -0400

At 12:00 PM 4/29/98 +0200, Holger Wagner wrote:

>> > I think "religion" is seeking truth. Religions have generally
>> > found it. Just like "science" seeks knowledge (or the creation
>> > of theory) and General Relativity has found it.
>> IAN: If science seeks knowledge, does
>> science seek true or false knowledge?

> What is true or false knowledge?

IAN: A lie constitutes false knowledge.
A true statement (i.e., a statement that
maximizes a 100% accurate representation
of the physical universe or mathematic
models) constitutes true knowledge.

Of course a true statement A, is A relative
to not-A, hence the false defines the true.
If all statements were true, they'd just
be statements (if in U, A = 100% and not-A
= 0%, A = 0%). While this defines identity-
union (via mutual identity definition), it
simultaneously defines identity-difference.

We could have a universe of statements where
all statements were true, only the secondary
identity attribute "true" would have no meaning,
all statements would just be statements, and
they'd be statements relative to not-statements.

If a verbal statement was bereft of internal
differential attributes, such a tone modulation,
and thus was like uniform flat-white noise, and
if there was no time that is was not, then it
would fall to 0, and would not have measurable
existence... just like consciousness (null).

In short: A, if and only if not-A.

>A theory can explain things to you - but even if it's a very good
>explanation, it might turn out to be misleading some day. And a theory
>can predict things, more or less accurately. Just because a theory gives
>a good explanation or predicts things accurately doesn't mean that it's
>"true". If you approach science with the ideal to find truth, you'll
>either be very frustrated real soon (because no matter how hard you try,
>there's no certainty or truth) OR you may find something that looks like
>truth to you, which is even worse. Truth doesn't change, so if you think
>you found truth, you can't deal with a new theory that contradicts your
>"truth" (but might be a LOT better).

IAN: I'd say that avoidance of a theory
because no evidence to the contrary can
be found is more worrisome to me than
the possibility that a given person
can or cannot handle a new theory.

My efforts to map truth have been very
successful. Efforts of contrarians have
been very frustrating. So far, no examples
of an identity or attribute of any identity
that is not derived from differential relation
have been found. None. The evidence for holism
is therefore absolute, and for atomism null,
the fact that many denounce my theory because
contrary evidence cannot be found worries me.

My theory could be imperfect, no question, but
100% of evidence says that it's in the ballpark

>> If there are 2 varieties of knowledge,
>> and if science is for true knowledge,
>> then truth is the true goal of science.
>Ever read Popper? "Truth" is absolute - science may get better... btw, I
>think the "true" goals of science have changed during history (so they
>never were absolutely true -

IAN: Well, we could change a true statement
into a false statement, but that does not
mean it was not a true statement.

VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ---->