Creationists: How do you test for "truth"?

[blü 2]

If it is part of a coherent belief system then it is not only meaningful but also true.

Is that what you think? That the blue elephant isn't blue if your book says it's pink?

I see. So electrons exist because you can detect their effects and, by extension, them. I'm sure Christians will argue that God can be detected through his effects. So what's the difference?

What exactly do you mean by "God", such that if we detect a phenomenon we can determine whether or not its cause is "God"?

You claim that correspondence logically follows from the correspondence theory of truth.

I said that if you use the correspondence definition of 'truth', as I do, then it follows that correspondence is the test for 'truth'.

Even if that is true, that only means that you have engaged in circular reasoning. Why should I accept your definition of truth?

There's no circularity. It satisfies the definition of an X so it's an X.

You claim that the statement "Truth corresponds to reality" is true.

No, I specifically pointed out to you that I made no such claim. I pointed out that it's a concept, a definition, not a statement about reaIity. I said that 'truth is correspondence with reality' IF you use that definition (as I and many people do).

As for the definition of truth, I have already quoted from the Christian holy text. Jesus is truth, according to Christian theology. Everything he says and does is true.

Everything Jesus does and says is Jesus, you say? Show me how that's useful as a definition. Show me the process by which it assesses S:Freetown is the capital of Liberia for truth or falsity.

Genesis 1:9-10
>>And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
>>And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

So now you claim that the Earth was a sphere. Yet the text itself defines Earth as the dry land. By definition, that's what it is.

On the evidence we presently have and as we presently interpret it, the earth has been spherical (close enough) since its formation, about 4.5 bn years ago; life arose maybe 3.8 bn years ago; H sap sap appears probably not more than 200,000 years ago, nor less than 70,000 years ago; Yahweh, god of the bible, appears in the southern Judea region about 1500 BCE; the earliest books of the bible may use material from around 1000 BCE.

All these things have been determined on the basis of examinable evidence and repeatable experiment. On my definition, S: the earth is about 4.5 bn years old is true, ie has a body of facts which constitute its S'.

So you want to hide behind your definition of truth while denying Tanakh's definition of Earth.

So you want to hide behind your book of folk tales instead of looking at the elephant to see whether it's pink or blue?

That's what we call "special pleading" in the logic business, a discipline you know nothing about.

*chuckle*

You just said that electrons exist. The question of whether they exist cannot be resolved by looking.

Oh dear, do I have to tell you that 'looking' is shorthand for gathering (through the senses) information including information via our instruments?

No one can look upon an electron. Electrons are a useful fiction that science dabbles in -- nothing more.

You can look upon electrons by looking at anything composed of atoms that's in your range of view, though they're too small for you to make out. Or you can look upon them using instruments: >here< is a lab image of a hydrogen atom, complete with single electron.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh, I see. You have your own definition of truth, and you ask us to embrace it with blind faith.

Because when we look at (external) reality, we do not find a satisfactory correspondence between these things and reality. Electrons cannot be seen, tasted, felt, smelled, or heard. Why should we believe in them?


And how do you know that this statement is true? How did you test this statement to determine that it really did correspond to reality?

Perhaps that's because your definition is self-contradicting?

The standards of correspondence truth do not necessarily include what can be seen, tasted, felt, smelled, or heard. We fell and observe the effects of gravity, but the nature of gravity itself cannot be seen, tasted, felt, smelled, or heard. By the way electrons can be photographed. Correspondence truth is dependent on 'objective features of the world [our physical existence]' that can be tested with predictable, consistent, understandable in terms of evidence, functional.

To you, perhaps. Obviously Christians feel otherwise. At any rate, the claim of Biblical inerrancy applies to the autographs themselves, most of which were written in Greek. It is a simple matter to go online and find dozens of different translations of any given passage of the Bible. This also depends on the copies that have been found and identified to date, and the assumption that they are, to some extent, a good copy of an inerrant autograph.

This view of the NT gospels and letters would not qualify as correspondent truth, because it lacks objective features that may be confirmed and agreed to by objective methods. It would be a coherent truth among those that 'believe' it to be true, based on the propositions of 'belief.' There is wide disagreement as to what would constitute 'original autographs' of the gospels. Many historians do not believe that there is objective evidence that the original autographs of the gospels exist, nor that the authors are known,

And, although you don't want to admit it, you also subscribe to a coherent definition of truth. To you, truth is anything that coheres to previous statements that you have accepted. If, for example, I were to put together a room of people who all claimed to have seen an angel that came to visit them, you would disbelieve these statements because they do not cohere with what you have previously accepted.

Similarly, your statement that truth must be verifiable is incoherent. Thus, the statement cannot be true.

By definition (Sanford Dictionary) correspondent truth is reality when based on 'objective features of the world [our physical existence],' which is the case for the sciences.

 

[Zosimus]

Is that what you think? That the blue elephant isn't blue if your book says it's pink?

That's what you think too. If I said that I had a pink elephant living happily in my 4' x 4' room, you would not believe that because:
A) You think all elephants are gray
B) You think that elephants don't fit into 4' x 4' rooms.

So this new statement is known to be false because it doesn't cohere with other knowledge that you have.

What exactly do you mean by "God"

No, it's not what I mean by God. When I say, "A Christian would argue..." that does not mean that I have to define God for you. The standard Christian concept of God is contained in the Nicene creed. Google it.

, such that if we detect a phenomenon we can determine whether or not its cause is "God"?

Well, you can never determine the cause of anything under your system. You can guess. You can conjecture. You can feel reasonably certain. But you can never know. That's the flaw of your system. I just don't see why you don't own up to it.

I said that if you use the correspondence definition of 'truth', as I do, then it follows that correspondence is the test for 'truth'.

If correspondence is the test for truth, then the statement "Things are true only if they correspond to reality" is false because the statement does not correspond to reality.

You see, that's the problem with scientific empiricism and its adherents. How many times have I heard someone say: "All knowledge comes through sense experience. The only way to know whether grass is green is to go look at some grass. If you stop and think about it for a while, you'll see that I'm right."

The above is a self-refuting argument. If all knowledge comes from sense experience, then the claim "all knowledge comes from sense experience" is not knowledge because the source of this 'knowledge' is stopping and thinking about it for a while rather than sense experience. That's the basic problem with radical scientism.

There's no circularity. It satisfies the definition of an X so it's an X.

You have no idea what you're talking about. It's one thing to say "An insect is a six-legged arthropod" by definition. I'm fine with that. But you cannot just say "2+2 = 5 because that's how I choose to define it."

No, I specifically pointed out to you that I made no such claim. I pointed out that it's a concept, a definition, not a statement about reaIity. I said that 'truth is correspondence with reality' IF you use that definition (as I and many people do).

Well, if you use that definition, then you are required by your own definition to disbelieve the definition.

Everything Jesus does and says is Jesus, you say? Show me how that's useful as a definition. Show me the process by which it assesses S:Freetown is the capital of Liberia for truth or falsity.

Well, there are three takes on that statement. Some Christians might say:

1) Since Jesus never said that Freetown is the capital of Liberia, it is not the capital of Liberia. This is called the radical position.
2) Since Jesus never said that Freetown is the capital of Liberia, this statement has an unknown truth value. This is called the moderate position.
3) Since Jesus never said that Freetown is the capital of Liberia, this statement is irrelevant. This is called the pragmatic position.

You know, the same argument could be leveled at science. If, for example, I said that my body has an intangible spirit inside it, a spirit created by God and capable of existing beyond my death. Scientists will adopt one of the following views:

1) Since there's no evidence for the claim, it is false. This is called the radical position.
2) Since there's no evidence for the claim, it has an unknown truth value. This is called the moderate position.
3) Since there's no evidence for the claim, it is irrelevant. This is called the pragmatic position.

On the evidence we presently have and as we presently interpret it, the earth has been spherical (close enough) since its formation, about 4.5 bn years ago; life arose maybe 3.8 bn years ago; H sap sap appears probably not more than 200,000 years ago, nor less than 70,000 years ago; Yahweh, god of the bible, appears in the southern Judea region about 1500 BCE; the earliest books of the bible may use material from around 1000 BCE.

Completely wrong. Science clearly claims that the Earth was gathered together in a super continent known as Pangaea 335 million years ago from which it broke up about 175 million years ago.

All these things have been determined on the basis of examinable evidence and repeatable experiment. On my definition, S: the earth is about 4.5 bn years old is true, ie has a body of facts which constitute its S'.

None of this information is relevant.

So you want to hide behind your book of folk tales instead of looking at the elephant to see whether it's pink or blue?

This statement is similarly irrelevant.

*chuckle*
Oh dear, do I have to tell you that 'looking' is shorthand for gathering (through the senses) information including information via our instruments?
You can look upon electrons by looking at anything composed of atoms that's in your range of view, though they're too small for you to make out. Or you can look upon them using instruments: >here< is a lab image of a hydrogen atom, complete with single electron.

And once again, we find the flaw in scientific empiricism. You claim that information comes from sense experience, yet most of what you believe in is on a basis of reading about what other people have experienced.

Additionally, I looked at your picture, and there was no electron to be observed.

 

[Zosimus]

The standards of correspondence truth do not necessarily include what can be seen, tasted, felt, smelled, or heard. We fell and observe the effects of gravity, but the nature of gravity itself cannot be seen, tasted, felt, smelled, or heard. By the way electrons can be photographed. Correspondence truth is dependent on 'objective features of the world [our physical existence]' that can be tested with predictable, consistent, understandable in terms of evidence, functional.

You're mixing up your concepts. There is a difference between verificationism and correspondence truth. Let's return to the original post in which we find that the OP said: "... truth can in principle be objectively verified..." By making that statement and by asserting correspondence truth, the OP has claimed that correspondence truth has (or can, at least, in principle be) objectively verified.

Very well, then. Objectively verify it. I'll be waiting right here munching my popcorn. Of course, I am not the first one to point out that verification is unverifiable. I am not even the first to point out that attempts to verify facts lead to an infinite regress problem. I am simply pointing out that your philosophical position was refuted more than a century ago. Didn't you get the memo?

This view of the NT gospels and letters would not qualify as correspondent truth, because it lacks objective features that may be confirmed and agreed to by objective methods. It would be a coherent truth among those that 'believe' it to be true, based on the propositions of 'belief.' There is wide disagreement as to what would constitute 'original autographs' of the gospels. Many historians do not believe that there is objective evidence that the original autographs of the gospels exist, nor that the authors are known,

First of all, your argument is contradictory. By saying, "Many historians do not believe that there is objective evidence..." you are subjecting us to a voting principle definition of truth. Because a sufficient number of historians have voted on something, you want me to accept it as true. Didn't you just express a solid belief in the correspondence theory of truth? What happened? Have you abandoned your position so quickly?

Second, even assuming that what you say is true, you are required to fall into one of the three camps outlined in my last post. Do you, therefore, claim that it is false (atheist), uncertain (agnostic), or irrelevant (pragmatic)?

By definition (Sanford Dictionary) correspondent truth is reality when based on 'objective features of the world [our physical existence],' which is the case for the sciences.

I'm not familiar with the Sanford Dictionary.

 

[Polymath257]

If theory (T) is true, then it will make verifiable predictions (P).
We observe P.
Therefore T is true.

However, this is a prime example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. !

Yes, and this is one reason that we require scientific ideas to be tes: that there is some observation that, if the idea is false, would show it to be false.

So, the *actual* reasoning goes more like this:
If theory T1 is true, then P1 will occur
If T2 is true, then P2 will occur
If T3 is true, then P3 will occur.
Only P2 occurs.
So, T1 and T3 are definitely false, and T2 passes the first test.

this leads to the problem of induction: how many verifications of a general idea are required to show that idea is true? And the problem is that you *cannot* prove a general idea is true through observation, although you *can* prove a general idea is *false*.

So, science tends to work on the principle: Eliminate all the false ideas and what you have remaining is the most likely to be true.

As for what I think truth is? Why, that's simple! Truth is any statement that is part of a coherent belief system. For example, if someone says "All elephants are blue. I have a pink elephant in my basement," then we have two statements that do not cohere. These statements are false.

Coherence is a necessary condition for truth, but it is very far from being a sufficient condition. So, while all truths will cohere, simple coherence is not enough to show a belief system is true.

There are two additional requirements (at least).
1. The belief system has to be consistent with observation.

So, mere coherence without any contact with the real world is not enough. It is way too easy to construct self-consistent systems that simply a don't work in the real world. The tie to observation is one way to guarantee this doens't happen.

2. The ideas in the belief system must be testable.
This is another simple requirement to eliminate falsehoods from the system. Not only do the ideas need to be consistent with observation, but if the ideas are wrong there must be some observation that will *show* they are wrong. This requirement is necessary because, again, it is *way* too easy to formulate internally consistent systems that are consistent with observation, but are also not connected to reality in any way. if there is no way to test between alternate systems, there is no way to make a truth claim for any of them.

So, part of the point is that coherence is required but is far from being enough. There also has to be a contact with reality (observation) and there has to be a way to eliminate falsehoods (testing).

 

[Polymath257]

You're mixing up your concepts. There is a difference between verificationism and correspondence truth. Let's return to the original post in which we find that the OP said: "... truth can in principle be objectively verified..." By making that statement and by asserting correspondence truth, the OP has claimed that correspondence truth has (or can, at least, in principle be) objectively verified.

Very well, then. Objectively verify it. I'll be waiting right here munching my popcorn. Of course, I am not the first one to point out that verification is unverifiable. I am not even the first to point out that attempts to verify facts lead to an infinite regress problem. I am simply pointing out that your philosophical position was refuted more than a century ago. Didn't you get the memo?

On the contrary, the fact that the scientific method has worked as well as it has (much better than any alternative) is, itself a verification of this theory of truth.

The test is whether it works. And it does.

 

[Polymath257]

That's what you think too. If I said that I had a pink elephant living happily in my 4' x 4' room, you would not believe that because:
A) You think all elephants are gray
B) You think that elephants don't fit into 4' x 4' rooms.

So this new statement is known to be false because it doesn't cohere with other knowledge that you have.

Right. And coherence is one aspect of how truth must work. But that elephants are grey is determined by observation. not coherence.

Completely wrong. Science clearly claims that the Earth was gathered together in a super continent known as Pangaea 335 million years ago from which it broke up about 175 million years ago.

No, the original quote was correct. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Pangaea is only the most recent of the super-continents, but the Earth existed long before the formation of Pangaea. Because of plate tectonics, continental plates tend to go through cycles of breaking apart and coalescing.

And once again, we find the flaw in scientific empiricism. You claim that information comes from sense experience, yet most of what you believe in is on a basis of reading about what other people have experienced.

So? That doesn't negate that their knowledge is from sense experience.

 

[Polymath257]

You have no idea what you're talking about. It's one thing to say "An insect is a six-legged arthropod" by definition. I'm fine with that. But you cannot just say "2+2 = 5 because that's how I choose to define it."

Well, they are different sorts of things. The first is a definition for classification purposes. The latter could, for example, be a definition of the symbol '5' in some formal system. You can, alternatively, change the definition of '2' or '+', or even '=' if you wish. ALL are defined concepts.

Now, if you have a formal system such that
S1=2, S2=3, S3=4, and S4=5, along with x+1=Sx, and x+Sy=S(x+y), then you can *deduce* that 2+2=4 as follows:
2+2=2+S1=S(2+1)=S(S(2))=S3=4.

But that deduction requires the definitions (S1=2,S2=3,S3=4) as well as the assumptions (x+1=Sx, x+Sy=S(x+y) ).

 

[shunyadragon]

You're mixing up your concepts. There is a difference between verificationism and correspondence truth. Let's return to the original post in which we find that the OP said: "... truth can in principle be objectively verified..." By making that statement and by asserting correspondence truth, the OP has claimed that correspondence truth has (or can, at least, in principle be) objectively verified.

Very well, then. Objectively verify it. I'll be waiting right here munching my popcorn. Of course, I am not the first one to point out that verification is unverifiable. I am not even the first to point out that attempts to verify facts lead to an infinite regress problem. I am simply pointing out that your philosophical position was refuted more than a century ago. Didn't you get the memo?

Actually by definition of correspondence truth requires verification by objective evidence by definition, which by definition is the nature of science. Science works by these methods; airplanes fly, computers work, and the knowledge of science progresses and changes over time when new objective evidence is discovered.

Regardless of pointing out, regardless of how many is not the basis of a coherent argument.

Your stone walling and munching on your popcorn does not require me to breast feed you on the simple reality of the nature of science and objective verification in Methodological Naturalism.

First of all, your argument is contradictory. By saying, "Many historians do not believe that there is objective evidence..." you are subjecting us to a voting principle definition of truth. Because a sufficient number of historians have voted on something, you want me to accept it as true. Didn't you just express a solid belief in the correspondence theory of truth? What happened? Have you abandoned your position so quickly?

No voting at all. I am just pointing out your assertion the original autographs of the gospels exist is based on an assertion without objective evidence, nor broad acceptance by historians.

Second, even assuming that what you say is true, you are required to fall into one of the three camps outlined in my last post. Do you, therefore, claim that it is false (atheist), uncertain (agnostic), or irrelevant (pragmatic)?

It is neither theist, atheistic, agnostic nor pragmatic, and not necessarily true. It is just a fact the assumption of the existence of original autographs of the gospel is not based on factual objective evidence, It is based on the belief that there are original autographs available.

I'm not familiar with the Sanford Dictionary.

It is Stanford, just a typo.

 

[blü 2]

That's what you think too. If I said that I had a pink elephant living happily in my 4' x 4' room, you would not believe that because:
A) You think all elephants are gray
B) You think that elephants don't fit into 4' x 4' rooms.
So this new statement is known to be false because it doesn't cohere with other knowledge that you have.

You miss the point. In the example the elephant is blue ─ painted blue, if you wish ─ but your book says the elephant is pink ─ painted pink, if you wish.

You assert that because your book says it's pink, it is not blue and it is pink.

I reply, We can settle this easily: let's look at the elephant.

But you refuse.

No, it's not what I mean by God. When I say, "A Christian would argue..." that does not mean that I have to define God for you. The standard Christian concept of God is contained in the Nicene creed. Google it.

I know what the Nicene creed says. And you know that it doesn't define God in any way useful to the question, How can we determine whether phenomenon X is caused by God.

And you further know that you don't have such a definition, the definition of a real god such that if we found a candidate we could tell whether it were God or not.

Well, you can never determine the cause of anything under your system. You can guess. You can conjecture. You can feel reasonably certain. But you can never know. That's the flaw of your system. I just don't see why you don't own up to it.

In 'my system' there are no absolutes, which matches reality where there are likewise no absolutes. And because science reaches its conclusions by empiricism and induction, its conclusions are always tentative. Nonetheless, science continues to make progress, in a manner with no equivalent in religion.

I have no idea why you regard the absence of absolutes as a 'flaw'. Do you think the idea of absolutes is Jesus? Or is coherent? God isn't omnipotent. He can't make a perfect copy of himself, for example. And if God is omniscient then he knew every letter of this conversation, every thought process in your head and mine, every temperature gradient along the wires that connect our computers ─ and he knew that before he made the universe 14 bn years ago, meaning that theological freewill is a nonsense, and you and I have not the tiniest possibility of deviating from what he infallibly foresaw. And if God is omnipresent, then for 14 bn years or so he's spread himself across maybe 10^24 stars and all their planets, and all the evergrowing space in between, which seems like a wonderwork of inefficiency for any god, let alone a personal god.

If correspondence is the test for truth, then the statement "Things are true only if they correspond to reality" is false because the statement does not correspond to reality.

I've already pointed out to you that "Under the correspondence definition of truth, truth is correspondence with reality" is true, and is the only claim I've made.

If all knowledge comes from sense experience, then the claim "all knowledge comes from sense experience" is not knowledge because the source of this 'knowledge' is stopping and thinking about it for a while rather than sense experience. That's the basic problem with radical scientism.

I didn't make the claim that all knowledge comes through sensory input. We're born with an extensive kit of instincts, for example.

But we get our information about the external world through our senses. Information is not knowledge until the brain processes it.

You have no idea what you're talking about. It's one thing to say "An insect is a six-legged arthropod" by definition. I'm fine with that. But you cannot just say "2+2 = 5 because that's how I choose to define it."

Nor can you say the blue elephant is pink because your book says so.

Well, there are three takes on that statement. Some Christians might say:

1) Since Jesus never said that Freetown is the capital of Liberia, it is not the capital of Liberia. This is called the radical position.
2) Since Jesus never said that Freetown is the capital of Liberia, this statement has an unknown truth value. This is called the moderate position.
3) Since Jesus never said that Freetown is the capital of Liberia, this statement is irrelevant. This is called the pragmatic position.

So your Jesus is truth method is incapable of telling us whether S: Freetown is the capital of Liberia is true or not. All facts not mentioned by Jesus, including your own name, are likewise unknowable. The time your plane leaves, the existence of Moscow or New York, the presence of oxygen in the air, the truth or falsity of any statement at all about the world since 30CE or so, is unknowable, you say.

It therefore means you're never in a position to contradict anything I say ─ you have no way of knowing whether it's correct ('true') or not.

You know, the same argument could be leveled at science. If, for example, I said that my body has an intangible spirit inside it, a spirit created by God and capable of existing beyond my death.

Like the report of an angel sighting you previously mentioned, the claim is capable of investigation, to reach a fair conclusion from the evidence. In this case, since there will (I take it) be no examinable evidence, and the matter is satisfactorily explained by your acculturation, you'll need something extra by way of satisfactory demonstration to get a conclusion in favor of your claim.

Completely wrong. Science clearly claims that the Earth was gathered together in a super continent known as Pangaea 335 million years ago from which it broke up about 175 million years ago.

You appear to be unaware that the word 'Earth' and the phrase 'the earth' can refer to the planet Earth.

None of this information is relevant.

It's highly relevant to the bible tale of Genesis creation. We can even put a rough date on when Yahweh was invented.

This statement is similarly irrelevant.

On the contrary it's the crux of our discussion. You refuse to look at the elephant to determine its actual color, because you prefer the answer in your book.

And once again, we find the flaw in scientific empiricism. You claim that information comes from sense experience, yet most of what you believe in is on a basis of reading about what other people have experienced.

You're a really sore loser, aren't you. I show you a lab image of a real electron and you invent a blustery excuse instead of saying Sorry, I was wrong. I now understand electrons exist in reality.

Additionally, I looked at your picture, and there was no electron to be observed.

An electron is not a tiny ball bearing, it's a negative fermion with 1/2 spin, and presents with both wave-like and particle-like properties. You can see it in the image as the outer ring of dots.

 

[Polymath257]

Additionally, I looked at your picture, and there was no electron to be observed.

Which only shows you don't understand what you saw.

 

[JoshuaTree]

Now, the issue is whether the book you read actually *is* the 'Word of God' as opposed to the writings of men who believed (rightly or wrongly) in what they wrote.

If the bible is the word of God as opposed to the writings of men then the bible... and all that is was and ever shall be ...is predestined, no one has the free will to make mistakes and everything is according to God's perfect plan. I'm good with predestination but I've not met a creationist yet that believes in predestination which leaves the writings of men open to interpretation. I'm good with interpretation but I've not met a creationist yet that allows me to interpret the writings of men saying for example that Adam and eve were not literal. Given I've never met a creationist that is able to change their mind supports predestination and so i celebrate our differences as part of God's perfect plan. lol

 

[Zosimus]

Yes, and this is one reason that we require scientific ideas to be tes: that there is some observation that, if the idea is false, would show it to be false.

Great! Let's start there. What test or observation could I make that would tend to show the 'correspondence' theory of truth to be false?

So, the *actual* reasoning goes more like this:
If theory T1 is true, then P1 will occur
If T2 is true, then P2 will occur
If T3 is true, then P3 will occur.
Only P2 occurs.
So, T1 and T3 are definitely false, and T2 passes the first test.

Of course, that's an extremely simplistic and unrealistic situation. If you have theory T that makes predictions P, and P is not detected you know that something is wrong... but what? Were your instruments malfunctioning? Did you think that theory T predicted P but really it predicted Q? And, of course, theory T depends on a whole host of other theories and hypotheses. Which of those are wrong? Plus, science doesn't actually work that way. There are a host of theories that do not explain what we see around us, but which science still bandies about (Big Bang theory, for example).

this leads to the problem of induction: how many verifications of a general idea are required to show that idea is true? And the problem is that you *cannot* prove a general idea is true through observation, although you *can* prove a general idea is *false*.

Well, I certainly agree with your comment about the problem of induction, but I wonder whether you (and other posters here) carry this through to its logical conclusion. How often do we here on here that neo-Darwinism (hereinafter called MES for "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis") is a fact, when you just admitted that theories can never really be confirmed using scientific methods -- only falsified. Additionally, good portions of MES are not falsifiable -- natural selection, for example.

So, science tends to work on the principle: Eliminate all the false ideas and what you have remaining is the most likely to be true.

What observation or experiment could I do that might tend to prove that theory wrong? If you cannot think of one, then it's not falsifiable and not properly part of science.

Coherence is a necessary condition for truth, but it is very far from being a sufficient condition. So, while all truths will cohere, simple coherence is not enough to show a belief system is true.

There are two additional requirements (at least).
1. The belief system has to be consistent with observation.

Then have I got a belief system for you! It's called Solipsism. The belief that everything that happens is in your mind. It's perfectly coherent and perfectly consistent with reality. Are you a solipsist? If not, why not?

So, mere coherence without any contact with the real world is not enough. It is way too easy to construct self-consistent systems that simply a don't work in the real world. The tie to observation is one way to guarantee this doens't happen.

2. The ideas in the belief system must be testable.
This is another simple requirement to eliminate falsehoods from the system. Not only do the ideas need to be consistent with observation, but if the ideas are wrong there must be some observation that will *show* they are wrong. This requirement is necessary because, again, it is *way* too easy to formulate internally consistent systems that are consistent with observation, but are also not connected to reality in any way. if there is no way to test between alternate systems, there is no way to make a truth claim for any of them.

And yet you are content to make truth claims for much of the above, most of which is completely untestable.

 

[Zosimus]

On the contrary, the fact that the scientific method has worked as well as it has (much better than any alternative) is, itself a verification of this theory of truth.

This claim requires us to make several questionable assumptions.
1. That our current theories are closer to the real 'truth' than previous theories were. Yet, we still haven't gotten past a basic definition of truth that we can all agree on.
2. That this progress is a result of science, as opposed to something else. If we define 'working' as 'creating technology' then we find that human technological progress has been proportional to the total worldwide human population since the beginning of time. There was no bump in the rate of technological advancement during the time of the 'scientific revolution.' Why, therefore, should we think that science is the cause?

The test is whether it works. And it does.

Again -- define 'works' and specify an observation that, if made, would tend to falsify the idea that science 'works.'

 

[Zosimus]

Actually by definition of correspondence truth requires verification by objective evidence by definition, which by definition is the nature of science. Science works by these methods; airplanes fly, computers work, and the knowledge of science progresses and changes over time when new objective evidence is discovered.

That you can make such a ridiculous statement is a sign of just how ignorant you are. Verificationism is unverifiable -- that's the first problem. The second problem is that it is impossible to verify anything. Let's suppose, for example, that you made the claim: "Trump traveled to Japan recently." We want to verify that. How do we do so? Well, we could ask you how you know that and you might say: "Well, I read it in the Washington Post." This requires us to 1) verify that it was actually the Washington Post and 2) verify how the Washington Post got its information. Assuming we ignore 1) for the moment and simply focus on 2) that would require us to call the Washington Post and get someone on the phone who tells us that WaPo got the information from the US Press Secretary. That requires us to verify that it really was the US Press Secretary and to determine how the US Press Secretary got his information. On and on, back further and further we must verify the verifications and there is no end to this process. It's called an infinite regress.

Regardless of pointing out, regardless of how many is not the basis of a coherent argument.

Your stone walling and munching on your popcorn does not require me to breast feed you on the simple reality of the nature of science and objective verification in Methodological Naturalism.

Again, most of your claims have been debunked decades ago. You might start at verificationism or you could just read This article, which points out: "The statement that it is good, all things being equal, to believe what is true...is not itself...verifiable." So if I really accepted your philosophy, I would have to reject your philosophy.

No voting at all. I am just pointing out your assertion the original autographs of the gospels exist is based on an assertion without objective evidence, nor broad acceptance by historians.

All of this is beside the point. I merely indicated that theory of Biblical inerrancy only applies to the autographs. Showing a mistake in the KJV, for example, is completely irrelevant to the claim of Biblical inerrancy.

 

[Polymath257]

Great! Let's start there. What test or observation could I make that would tend to show the 'correspondence' theory of truth to be false?

Well, the last 400 years have been a very good test of the overall scientific methods. It seems to be working.

Of course, that's an extremely simplistic and unrealistic situation. If you have theory T that makes predictions P, and P is not detected you know that something is wrong... but what? Were your instruments malfunctioning? Did you think that theory T predicted P but really it predicted Q? And, of course, theory T depends on a whole host of other theories and hypotheses. Which of those are wrong?

Which, of course, is why more than one observation is required. A collection of observations, controlling as many parameters as possible, is clearly the best method. When not available, look at as many cases as possible to see varances and see which are most tightly correlated.

And yes, instruments malfunction, and that is *always* the first place to look for bad results. Which is another reason reproducibility is required (different instruments).

Plus, science doesn't actually work that way. There are a host of theories that do not explain what we see around us, but which science still bandies about (Big Bang theory, for example).

My guess is your understanding of the BBT is faulty. It is one of the most successful theories we have had. In particular, now, we are in the age of precision cosmology (which was quite different than the situation 30 years ago). Detailed testing based on the CBR is now possible.

Well, I certainly agree with your comment about the problem of induction, but I wonder whether you (and other posters here) carry this through to its logical conclusion. How often do we here on here that neo-Darwinism (hereinafter called MES for "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis") is a fact, when you just admitted that theories can never really be confirmed using scientific methods -- only falsified. Additionally, good portions of MES are not falsifiable -- natural selection, for example.

To be a 'fact' in science means that it has been extensively tested and has passed tests that alternate theories have failed. MES has done that very well. And yes, it is falsifiable.

What observation or experiment could I do that might tend to prove that theory wrong? If you cannot think of one, then it's not falsifiable and not properly part of science.

This is elementary logic: only a false implies a false. So, science works by eliminating the false ideas through testing. Those that remain are held tentatively subject to further testing. This has worked quite well over the last 400 years as exemplified by your use of a computer.If it wasn't a workable method, we would not have made the progress we have made.

Then have I got a belief system for you! It's called Solipsism. The belief that everything that happens is in your mind. It's perfectly coherent and perfectly consistent with reality. Are you a solipsist? If not, why not?

I am not. Why not? Because I can be surprised. That is evidence of a world that is not me.

And yet you are content to make truth claims for much of the above, most of which is completely untestable.

All are part of the definition of truth. Definitions need not be testable.

 

[Polymath257]

This claim requires us to make several questionable assumptions.
1. That our current theories are closer to the real 'truth' than previous theories were. Yet, we still haven't gotten past a basic definition of truth that we can all agree on.

No, what is required is that our current theories are more accurate than older ones. And *that* is something that can be tested and is verified. For example, Newtonian ideas are quite good at predicting the motions of the planets. But Einstein's ideas are *better*, They give more accurate predictions.

What I am proposing is a 'convergence' model of truth: truth is what minimal assumptioned, testable theories converge to in the limit.

2. That this progress is a result of science, as opposed to something else. If we define 'working' as 'creating technology' then we find that human technological progress has been proportional to the total worldwide human population since the beginning of time. There was no bump in the rate of technological advancement during the time of the 'scientific revolution.' Why, therefore, should we think that science is the cause?

Which is cause and which is effect here? Advancement in technology is part of what allows for an increase in population. That is true no matter how the technology is advanced. And you are right, the initial sciences of astronomy and physics didn't have a significant effect on technology at first. It wasn't until the development of chemistry that the scientific results started to impinge more on the daily lives of people.

Again -- define 'works' and specify an observation that, if made, would tend to falsify the idea that science 'works.'

A persistent inability to make testable predictions that are verified would falsify the methods of science.

 

[dfnj]

What truth test did you carry out on the bible to determine that it's inerrant?

Articles of faith are accepted as being true without any evidence or proof. The "truth" you are looking for does not exist in religion. Having faith is a "choice" not a "decision" based on reason.

The difference between a human being and an automaton is human beings are capable of making choices. Automatons are only capable of making decisions.

 

[dfnj]

No, it's not what I mean by God. When I say, "A Christian would argue..." that does not mean that I have to define God for you. The standard Christian concept of God is contained in the Nicene creed. Google it.

You made really good points in your post.

So I google "Christian concept of God is contained in the Nicene creed" as you suggested. And the following thought jumped in my head as I read it. What is more likely, a couple of teenagers, Joseph and Mary, had sex out of marriage or Mary was impregnated by God? I know it's an irreverent thing to say but it's just the way my mind works. I apologize for being irreverent.

 

[dfnj]

What I am proposing is a 'convergence' model of truth: truth is what minimal assumptioned, testable theories converge to in the limit.

Science is great at coming up with mathematical descriptions for "how" nature behaves. Science never answers why does nature behave at all? Why does any energy exist at all as opposed to nothing? What is IT that decides which quantum state is realized upon observation?

I very much appreciate how science has dispelled countless silly superstitions over the last 200 years. But science is not closer to getting rid of the need for religion that before it became popular 200 years ago. Yes, the laws of physics and nature are relentless in following certain patterns of behavior. But science is no closer to answer "why" than ever before.

Religion may have failed in answering "how" nature behaves, that is, by supernatural causes. But the idea of religion as a way for answering the "why" questions is still valid. Not everyone is a nihilist. Not everyone believes on the cosmic timescale everything in our lives is just meaningless patterns of energy swirling around where no one pattern of energy is any more important than any other.

So you in my mind, your idea of a 'convergence' model of truth may exist, could exist, and I doubt it would answer my important "why" questions.

The other problem with the idea of having a 'convergence' model of truth is I would have a hard time accepting it's accuracy and completeness with regards to every possibility in nature.