scientific truth

[AntonioLao]

The truth of any idea derived using the scientific method is one that can be assimilated, validated, corroborated, and verified. Whether one can assimilate, validate, or verify a true idea depends on its consequence from one’s thoughts and one’s actions. In order to form a clear notion of a scientific truth, it is at the least necessary to consider truth of thoughts and truth of words distinctly from one another. This is a distinction between mental truth and verbal truth. Mental truth consists in the joining or separating of one’s ideas in such a way for them to agree with the realities they represent. On the other hand, verbal truth consists in the joining or separating of one’s words uttered in propositions as the ideas these words stand for to agree or to disagree in ones’ minds. However, the definition of scientific truth as the agreement of the mind with reality leaves many problems to be solved and further explanations to be given by those who accept it. As William James (1842-1910) indicated, the theory of scientific truth begins rather than ends with its definition. The billion dollars question is how does one know when one’s ideas (both statements and judgments) correspond with reality? Not surprisingly, the simple answer is only by experimental verifications. These would be more than enough in an imperfect probabilistic world to give assurance of the truth and falsity of one’s ideas. A good example is given by the Aristotelian doctrine that a large boulder drop together with a tiny pebble from the same height will reach the ground first. The belief of this doctrine was held for more than 1500 years until Galileo experimentally demonstrated atop the leaning tower of Pisa that both the boulder and the pebble will reach the ground at the same time.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The truth of any idea derived using the scientific method is one that can be assimilated, validated, corroborated, and verified. Whether one can assimilate, validate, or verify a true idea depends on its consequence from one’s thoughts and one’s actions. In order to form a clear notion of a scientific truth, it is at the least necessary to consider truth of thoughts and truth of words distinctly from one another. This is a distinction between mental truth and verbal truth. Mental truth consists in the joining or separating of one’s ideas in such a way for them to agree with the realities they represent. On the other hand, verbal truth consists in the joining or separating of one’s words uttered in propositions as the ideas these words stand for to agree or to disagree in ones’ minds. However, the definition of scientific truth as the agreement of the mind with reality leaves many problems to be solved and further explanations to be given by those who accept it. As William James (1842-1910) indicated, the theory of scientific truth begins rather than ends with its definition. The billion dollars question is how does one know when one’s ideas (both statements and judgments) correspond with reality? Not surprisingly, the simple answer is only by experimental verifications. These would be more than enough in an imperfect probabilistic world to give assurance of the truth and falsity of one’s ideas. A good example is given by the Aristotelian doctrine that a large boulder drop together with a tiny pebble from the same height will reach the ground first. The belief of this doctrine was held for more than 1500 years until Galileo experimentally demonstrated atop the leaning tower of Pisa that both the boulder and the pebble will reach the ground at the same time.

And then we're back to Peirce's triadic scientific proofs__Logic, math and the scientific ground of experiments. Peirce happens to be the scientist who happened to teach James all his scientific knowledge, which he just happened to corrupt, with his brand of pseudo-psychology. Only Peirce is the scientist of all the pragmatists, the original pragmaticist__The founding father of pragmatism/pragmaticism__True modern scientific methods...

Perice outlived James by four years, yet James financially supported Peirce, and set up funds, to continue after James' death, to support Peirce to his death__That's how much he thought of America's greatest scientist/philosopher__The true triadic philosopher/scientist...

[AntonioLao]

And then we're back to Peirce's triadic

I was not aware of Peirce's work until you mentioned it. This is the link I found http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/ and I will be reading up on it, thanks. But I'm more interested in your own ideas about scientific truth if you are willing to share them. Again, thanks.

[Profpat]

I remember something in the Bible, that a simple YES or NO would suffice in affirming the truth or untruth of anything. In fact I think anything beyond that was considered evil.

I see the similarities of that with a truth table that the answer is either true or false, and through process of elimination you come to the truth.

Or the biary code in the computer 0/1 closed/open.

And so Aristotle should have asked the question "If I drop 2 rocks of different weights will there be different speeds" ( Intuitive answer yes; correct answer no ) Now for Aristotle to come up with the correct answer he should have done what Galileo did and test it physically.

But I think by using a dualistic thought process of yes/no may help us approach the truth.

Best,

Pat

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Yeah Antonio, that's a good-start general article on Peirce, as I've read it before. As to the best first hand material, his book on logic and algebra is available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=xq8...age&q=&f=false

And sure Antonio, I'd be glad to share ideas, but you'd have to let me know what area, or ask a question directly. As to scientific truth, generally I accept all the past greats definitions of methods, but the tricky part is always as to definitions, as you mentioned in the first post here. Anyway, let me know what specific area of science you'd be interested in...

Lloyd

I was not aware of Peirce's work until you mentioned it. This is the link I found http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/ and I will be reading up on it, thanks. But I'm more interested in your own ideas about scientific truth if you are willing to share them. Again, thanks.

[labelwench]

Always interested in how others interpret 'the truth' of science, though I have no questions that require immediate answers. "How' things work, matter less to me, than whether the patterns are inherent in nature and somewhat predictable, allowing incorporation into my day-to-day as experiential truths.

Those who live on the land depend on 'traditional knowledge' and such is tested by the ultimate in rigor, in that quite often, one's life depends on the reliability of their knowledge, though it has not been measured or expressed in 'scientific' terms.

[AntonioLao]

I remember something in the Bible

If that is true then the Bible is the first recorded use of binary arithmetic and the precursor of computer science.

what specific area of science you'd be interested in...

The extraction of energy from the quantum vacuum by the process of cold fusion.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The extraction of energy from the quantum vacuum by the process of cold fusion.

Imo Antonio, there exists no cold fusion process to extract energy from the quantum vacuum, though there may be a real world cold fusion process, by that yet untried combination of chemicals, metals and minerals, and possibly a mixture of organic materials. They're achieving higher temperature super-conductive transmission, all the time, so why not some scientific discovery for real world cold fusion...? To me, conservation of mass and energy prevents anything from the vacuum__Unless one develops a massive collector of em waves__Then I don't know if it could be concentrated enough to be efficient__Super-Magnetic Vortex and Lasers...?__just guessing__But then imo, there's no achieving an over-unity state. I think Helmholtz's ideas hold ground in this area...

That's why I look more to new economic systems, to take advantage of existing science and technologies__About 90% of scientific capacity goes un-used__Not economically efficient. No new scientific technological invention would be any different, when everyone just chases the money__So, the money system must be made conducive to advantaging existing, and any new science and technology...

[labelwench]

You are undoubtedly current on all of the related research, Antonio, but I thought that I would post this here for other viewers. LW

Cold fusion experimentally confirmed

R. Colin Johnson
EE Times
(03/23/2009 8:43 PM EDT)


PORTLAND, Ore. — U.S. Navy researchers claimed to have experimentally confirmed cold fusion in a presentation at the American Chemical Society's annual meeting.

"We have compelling evidence that fusion reactions are occurring" at room temperature, said Pamela Mosier-Boss, a scientist with the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (San Diego). The results are "the first scientific report of highly energetic neutrons from low-energy nuclear reactions," she added.

Cold fusion was first reported in 1989 by researchers Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, then with the University of Utah, prompting a global effort to develop the technology. Normal fusion reactions, where hydrogen is fused into helium, occur at millions of degrees inside the Sun. If room temperature fusion reactions could be realized commercially, as Fleishchmann and Pons claimed to have achieved inside an electrolytic cell, it promised to produce abundant nuclear energy from deuterium--heavy hydrogen--extracted from seawater.

Other scientists were unable to duplicate the 1989 results, thereby discrediting the work.

The theoretical underpinnings of cold fusion have yet to be adequately explained. The hypothesis is that when electrolysis is performed on deuteron, molecules are fused into helium, releasing a high-energy neutron. While excess heat has been detected by researchers, no group had yet been able to detect the missing neutrons.

Now, the Naval researchers claim that the problem was instrumentation, which was not up to the task of detecting such small numbers of neutrons. To sense such small quantities, Mosier-Boss used a special plastic detector called CR-39. Using co-deposition with nickel and gold wire electrodes, which were inserted into a mixture of palladium chloride and deutrium, the detector was able to capture and track the high-energy neutrons.

More at this link:

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...leID=216200272

[Profpat]

What new economic system, something to replace good old capitalism. I'm still trying to come up with a system better than a free market, but haven't suceeded yet. If Antonio or someone could come up with cheaper renewable energy, that would change the economic and social landscape. Can you imagine what would happen to the middle east if we no longer required oil? And what would happen to our petro dollars which is really substaining our debt?