Science Confirms Human Life Begins at Conception, Unborn Children are Human Beings
(www.lifenews.com)
🏆 - WINNING - 🏆
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (17)
sorted by:
So eventually if you are getting closer to reality prediction in models then you have the truth...
The nature of science, the construction of the scientific process, is only ever to makes statements of improved probabilities. It has no capacity to make statements of absolutes. The moment you think science is saying "this is the truth" is the moment you lose the capacity, as a scientist, to look at evidence to the contrary, which is the opposite of the entire construct of science.
Even in it's statements of probabilities, science doesn't always take steps forward. Sometimes they are sideways, sometimes they are backwards. In general however, it does seem to progress (if allowed, and not controlled). But a step forward, doesn't mean you will ever reach the end. If every step I take is one half the way towards my goal, how many steps will it take to reach the end? Well... infinite steps (the dichotomy paradox). In a system that can't make statements of "1", but only "0.95" or whatever, you can never reach the end. Each step is always less than the "1" needed to get between here and there.
So yes, as your model approaches the asymptote of Reality, eventually you will get there.
But the universe will end first.
I'm not saying it is impossible to understand Truth. I'm saying the tool of science is not one that will be making any statements of what that is. It simply isn't in its capacity. That's not its function. That's not a part of its design.
It's a tool. It's a path, a debate, a dialectic. It's not the Truth. The Truth Is, exactly and precisely, What It Is. Science can never make exact and precise statements, thus it can never tell us the Truth. The best we can hope for in science, is to be less wrong than we were the day before.
Didnt you just use science -the dichotomy paradox- to explain/expose a truth in absolute? The truth is you will never know the truth
I have no idea what you mean by this. No "absolute truth was exposed," nor was it attempted.
The "paradox" (which is something that doesn't actually exist) is based on math (an infinite sum of 1/2^n). Math is logically consistent, it also never makes statements of Truth, because it is axiomatic (see Goedel's thm. of completeness, the Turing machine, etc.). The problem people have is, in logic, we state a thing is "true" when what we really mean is "logically consistent." This unfortunate nomenclature (like "imaginary numbers") is often confusing for many people.
There is a huge difference between "logic true" and "The Truth" AKA Reality. In the case above I was merely showing how the language of science (math) shows, in a self-consistent way, that science can only approach the truth asymptotically (at best), and can never actually reach it.
If you want to explain how you think I've made a logical error, you will have to be more explicit, because your one liner makes no sense to me. I see no error.
This may very well be true. I never made claims that I would. I've tried my whole life and I only have more questions. Nevertheless, that was never my point. My point was that science (which I have also spent my whole life on) will never tell it to me, because it can't.
Forgive me for quoting a singer... but isn't math related to science?