I promised to keep it brief,
so here goes. Links to footnotes are provided.
I will summarise our opposing views to provide a context for my argument.
(I think the notion of context is under used.)
The notion of "absolute truth" is a non
starter because the word 'truth' is so
poorly defined. I propose that though such a concept exists (whether
memetically, or as belief) it is either ill defined or has an
extremely limited scope without assumptions, which carry their
own uncertainty. However, there is logic at
the root of the concept, as expressed: "there is that which is
and that which is not", and it is to this distinction that my
argument is addressed. From here on I will use "true" and "false" in
a strictly logical sense unless quotes or the word "absolute" is
used.
Bone of Contention 1: Whatever the context, falsehood is what
defines truth.
It is much easier to prove falsehood than
truth. Contradiction is fundamental to determining true and false
in all contexts from law court to pure logic.
The only absolute falsehood is logical impossibility. If absolute truth is defined
as it's opposite, it could be said to exist, but only to the extent as other
logic constructs are said to exist. In this context I will agree that absolute
truth exists, and so do numbers and deduction. But this truth is a creation of
humans in the manner of a word definition: we have declared that we are identifying
this word to be equivalent to this phrase; it must be true. The
logical edifices constructed from logic and number are magnificent monuments
to humankind, but the fact that they are true is trivial.
You may still be harbouring a belief in
absolute truth in science or the physical world. I believe the
notion of absolute truth is unhelpful in most sciences and superfluous
in all of them.
Bone of Contention 2: Science does not
need "truth" because "accuracy" is sufficient.
If scientific predictions agree to experiment
to accuracy like .. who needs truth? Science may find an even
more accurate model with more accurate predictions which refute
the previous theory. Talk of truth in science is a convenient
use of language. There's no need to search for truth, just accuracy.
As long as more and better observations and experiments are possible,
the refutation of any hypothesis is possible and it can never
be regarded as absolute truth. Believing a theory or hypothesis
to be absolutely true is unscientific.
My Conclusion.
I am left with the view that, whilst we
know what we mean by "truth", (the context determining precise
interpretation) "absolute truth" is an unhelpful use of language.
Given the context, "absolute" is either implicit, impossible
or irrelevant.
So in summary: absolute truth is a woolly concept, beloved by the religious,
and you must abandon it immediately. Stick to absolute falsehood. "You know
it makes sense."
Unbeliever.
Footnotes:
truth
(I was going to include this section in
the main argument. After your (Martin Willett's) last email I
have narrowed my characterisation of your belief. This side-steps
any pointless "use of language" or "possible knowledge" arguments.)
The notion of an "absolute" truth is really
a non starter because the word "truth" is so poorly defined.
We all talk about "truth" in various contexts and assume the
word always means the same, but an everyday example shows the
problem.
In a court of law, it expected that people will "tell the truth": that they
will say what they believe is true. Our culture expects everyone to understand
truth in that sense, even if they lie. This is the everyday usage of the word "truth",
but clearly, witnesses may tell the truth as they understand it and still be
wrong. Were they telling the truth? If it transpires that a witness was mistaken,
did their statement begin as true and then become false? Surely "the truth" must
be constant over time?
The "what there is and what there is not" distinction coincides with the strictly
logical context of "true" and "false".
My position is that "truth", whether are talking about the word, concept or
meme, has varieties in meaning according to context. There is a clear concept
behind all it's uses: logic, but that does not cover normal use of "true" in
law courts or science, and is synonymous with "absolute truth".
Back
logic
A more specialised meaning of "truth" is
in Logic. Logic is about the inter-relationships of truths. Truths
must exist before logic has any relevance but it cannot tell
you what those truths are. It does not specify what is true,
but gives absolutely certainty about what cannot be true. Understand
logic and you have a powerful tool for evaluating your beliefs.
The whole point about logic is that if
you start from truths and reason logically and validly, you always
obtain truths. The catch is that if any of your reasoning is
logically invalid, or assumptions incorrect, every subsequent "truth" derived
becomes as good as random guessing. The certainty of the truths
you start from affects the truth of everything you reason from
them.
science
Science is about testing hypotheses by
experiment and getting quantifiable results. A "true" hypothesis
is one that has not been shown false, and is good at explaining
observable (loosely) phenomena. It may not be absolutely true:
Newtonian mechanics was thought to be the "truth" about the movement
of astronomical objects; relativity shows it is not. Believing
a hypothesis is absolutely true is unscientific: it denies the
possibility that future observation could prove it false. Laws
of nature are the most trusted form of hypotheses, but even they
have been amended over time.
Accuracy is the test for the predictions
derived from scientific hypotheses. Experimental data from multiple
experiments is necessary to support a hypothesis; there must
be agreement between all of this data. When the hypothesis has
been put to the test and only supportive evidence found, confidence
in it rises; if the accuracy of the agreement from diverse experiments
is high, it rises more. But as long as more and better observations
and experiments are possible, the refutation of any hypothesis
is possible and it can never be regarded as absolute truth. It
does not matter: the accuracy of predictions gives a way to decide
between competing theories. When scientists talk about "truth",
I believe they usually use the term colloquially.
|
