To begin it is quite pertinent to understand that Science works on assumptions and from these assumptions it tests and proposes more assumptions. Now, if we base all our "facts" on assumptions would it not be reasonable to assume that maybe we do not know anything. This assumption is quite correct. Science while it does generate the most plausible and sound reasons for why things are the way we perceive them.
This theory that Science is not true is actually grounded, not only within science itself, but by a philosopher named Hume. This philosopher proposed that nothing can be proven as True. Though Hume used this theory in an argument for the existence of God it is quite relevant elsewhere.
His idea states that maybe all the things we perceive to react upon one another could just be doing it by coincidence. It can best be shown in three frames of a film. In these frames are two pool balls and they go towards one another and "collide" and separate.
Now viewing each of these as individual frames it is evident that maybe that is just how they move independently not reacting upon one another. Knowing that the eye actually views the same way a camera does, in frames, Hume is right.
3 comments:
First of all, I did not claim that science=truth. I claimed that science is not opinion based, due to the scientific method removing opinions from the process. It puts boundaries in place so that the operator's opinion can not interfere with the results, when used properly. Also, science does not claim to have all the answers once you get beyond 100level classes. In upper division classes, they point out what they don't know with actual scientific studies, so they don't claim to have "The Truth". Whereas in Humanities it is about looking at an object and analyzing it subjectively, trying to pass opinions off as truth. Just look at the readings for this class, they are all of the persuasive nature.
My inference about the common thought that science=truth has nothing to do with the classes, no matter their ranking or level, it was merely to address the point at which ignorance is born. I think you can agree to that.
Maybe this post should have focused on the weight at which we value Truth or to which we believe it to have, but this was definitely more fun.
How does one know that it isn't opinion based..I mean look at archeology...a type of science trying to figure out what happened at what site, they have to interpret their findings somehow..And whether it's true or false the person will probably base their findings or hypothesis on something they have seen in the world or base it off of math (like in science).
Therefore science can't be with out some form of opionion.
I don't think humanities is trying to pass anything off of truth either...it's more trying to get you to think why things are they way they are in certain cultures. It's really hard to see that since we get extremely opinion based and truth sometimes changes from person to person
Post a Comment