Philosophy vs. Science/was Re: ExI = Truth First ?

Technotranscendence (
Sat, 16 May 1998 10:37:00 -0400 (EDT)

At 07:40 AM 5/16/98 -0500, ChuckKuecker <> wrote:
>Scientific truth: experiments can be devised and performed that give the
>same asnwer again and again, with some statistical variances. All can agree
>on the results. No opinions are needed.

I agree that repeatability and transparency are a big part of science.

>Scientific truths are absolute, be they 'useful' or not.

I agree in regards to truth of any flavor. I do think that one can't put any
adjective before truth and mean what is commonly meant by truth -- which
I take to be when an idea corresponds to existence. Thus, "religious
truths" and "mythical truths" are either oxymorons or metaphors or something
other than a literal interpretation of the term would have you believe.

>Philosophic truth: beliefs, tenets of religions, political platforms.
>Impossible to cleanly define what the 'truth' is for any but a small group
>of like minded poeple.
>Usefulness of this kind of truth is directly related to who you talk to..

The problem here, of course, is that your view of scientific truth is a
philosophy. You believe certain truths are on firmer grounds than
others and we should focus on these. Is this not a philosophy? It
seeks to define and guide inquiry into what is true and even has
a value system inherent in it.

I do not think truth is completely separable into neat areas -- science,
philosophy, politics, ect. I think philosophy is basic beliefs. By "basic
beliefs," I mean stuff like the nature of existence and of knowledge.
I consider these the What and the How of philosophy. The nature
of existence tells us, in general (because the sciences and history
tell us specific facts) what is, while the nature of knowledge would
give us methods of knowing as such (whether of general or specific

Does anyone agree with me here?


Daniel Ust