Philosophers have struggled with the question "What is truth?" from the dawn of time.
The current theory of truth among the public and scientists is that truth corresponds with facts and reality. Many scientists would add that the scientific method is the central system for determining facts and the best tool to find the truth.

The prevailing theory of truth

Inductive logic is the process of observations, then drawing conclusions from that limited data.
<ul>
<li>In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), David Hume argues that inductive logic is unjustified as it can fail. If you only notice white swans, it does not mean all swans are white? The next one could be black.</li>
<li>In his Critique of Pure Reason (1781), Immanuel Kant says people can't distinguish between reality and our perception of reality. If you see an orange basketball, how do you know it is really orange?</li>
</ul>

Inductive logic

Science can put people on the moon and give us things like iPads. Science is the best way to understand the material world, but it can't answer the most important questions in life.
For example, science can't say anything substantive about love, beauty, purpose in life, yet they are the driving forces behind most human behaviour. Philosophy (and religion) have lots to say on these topics. Our best attempt to understand the truth is when we pay attention to both.

When science can't answer big questions

<div dir="ltr">
 <h2 data-type="text" dir="ltr">Scientists believe they have the answer, but philosophers prove them wrong.</h2>
</div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">
 
 </div></div>27 April, 2021</div><img alt="The hardest question ever asked: What is truth?" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNjA5MzcwMy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NjQyNzMxN30.7PXSM7RhfsE-nn1aPuO2arG0E_DBk25nZ48qeSmt9LI/img.jpg?width=1245&amp;quality=85&amp;coordinates=0%2C266%2C0%2C59&amp;height=700" width="703" height="395"><div dir="ltr">
 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Ciseri#/media/File:Ecce_homo_by_Antonio_Ciseri_(1).jpg" dir="ltr">Credit</a>: Ecce Homo, 1871 by Antonio Ciseri via Public Domain / Wikipedia
 </div><UL><LI>Science is based on the correspondence theory of truth, which claims that truth corresponds with facts and reality.</LI><LI>Various philosophers have put forth substantive challenges to the truth claims made by science.</LI><LI>While science is the best tool to understand the material universe, it has nothing substantive to say about the things that matter most, like love, beauty, and purpose.</LI></UL>In the Gospel According to John, the author retells a conversation between Jesus of Nazareth, who is on trial, and Pontius Pilate, the governor of the Roman province of Judaea. Toward the end of the interrogation, Jesus tells Pilate, "Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." Infamously, Pilate responds, "What is truth?"Pilate's tone is not clear. Was he asking a genuine question out of curiosity? Was he being sarcastic? Or was he asking the question in desperation, following a lifelong, exhausting search for the truth? We don't know. What we do know is that he didn't stick around for an answer.<h2>So, what is truth?</h2>Philosophers have struggled with this question since the dawn of time, perhaps because it's the hardest question ever asked. The field of epistemology is the subdiscipline of philosophy that grapples it, along with the nature of knowledge itself. The question, "What do we know and how do we know it?" occupies the mind of the epistemologist.The prevailing theory of truth, at least among the public and certainly among scientists, is the correspondence theory, which states that truth corresponds with facts and reality. It's a good theory, especially since it's practical and governs our day-to-day interactions. If I'm holding a tart, reddish-yellow, spherical fruit, I'm holding a Cosmic Crisp apple. There is no alternative theory of truth that could convince me that it's a limousine. Likewise, business contracts, the judicial system, and society as a whole are built around the idea that truth corresponds to reality.<BLOCKQUOTE>Science still can't answer the biggest — and arguably, most important — questions in life. </BLOCKQUOTE>Many scientists would take this a step further and argue that the scientific method is the foremost system for determining facts. Therefore, science is the best tool to determine reality and truth. But this is where things start to get tricky.<h2>Philosophers vs. Scientists</h2>At least two philosophers have presented substantial challenges to the epistemic privilege of science. In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), David Hume argues that inductive logic is unjustified. Inductive logic is the process of making observations and then drawing larger conclusions from limited data. When astrophysicists make a claim like, "All stars are flaming balls of hydrogen and helium," that grand, sweeping claim is based on observing lots and lots of stars and observing the same thing over and over again. But they haven't observed all the stars in the universe. Further, there is no guarantee that future stars will resemble past stars. So how can they really know for sure?That might sound like a childish objection, but consider this: At one time, Europeans believed that all swans are white. After all, everywhere they looked, they saw white swans. The swans on the river, the swans on the lake — all white. But then, one intrepid European (Willem de Vlamingh) went to Australia in 1697 and saw black swans. In this instance, inductive logic failed. This is the basis of Hume's argument that inductive logic is unjustified.<img src="data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%20600%20600'%3E%3C/svg%3E" width="600" height="600">Immanuel Kant<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology#/media/File:Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg" dir="ltr">Credit</a>: Public domain via WikipediaIn his Critique of Pure Reason (1781), Immanuel Kant provides another challenge: It is impossible for humans to distinguish between reality (what he called the "noumenon") and our perception of reality (what he called the "phenomenon"). The reason is because our experience of reality is filtered through our minds. When I look at a basketball and see that it is orange, how do I know that it really is orange? The photons that bounce off the ball and stimulate the cells in my retina trigger a series of electrochemical reactions in my nervous system that results in my brain interpreting the color as orange. But how do I know that my brain is right? What if basketballs are actually green, but our brains misinterpret the color as orange? Though Karl Popper's theory of falsification is a really good counterargument, there are no dispositive responses to these challenges, which is why scientists generally respond with, "Buzz off, philosophers." Stephen Hawking claimed that philosophy is dead (apparently unaware that the scientific method is rooted in epistemology). To bolster their case, scientists boast that they put people on the moon and gave us really cool things like iPads, non-stick skillets, and Viagra. Sure, Hume and Kant made some clever remarks a long time ago, but science works.Chapter 1.4: Karl Popper and the logic of falsification

Science is based on the correspondence theory, which claims that truth corresponds with facts and reality. Philosophers have made substantive challenges to the truth claims made by science. While science is the best tool to understand the material universe, it has little to say about the things that matter most, like love, beauty, and purpose.

Understand yourself and those around you.

psychology

Psychology

philosophy

Philosophy

personaldevelopment

Personal Development

problemsolving

Problem Solving

scienceandnature

Science & Nature

Scientists believe they have the answer, but philosophers prove them wrong.

<ul><li>Science is based on the correspondence theory of truth, which claims that truth corresponds with facts and reality. </li><li>Various philosophers have put forth substantive challenges to the truth claims made by science. </li><li>While science is the best tool to understand the material universe, it has nothing substantive to say about the things that matter most, like love, beauty, and purpose. </li> </ul>

In the Gospel According to John, the author retells a conversation between Jesus of Nazareth, who is on trial, and Pontius Pilate, the governor of the Roman province of Judaea. Toward the end of the interrogation, Jesus tells Pilate, "Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." Infamously, Pilate responds, "What is truth?"

Pilate's tone is not clear. Was he asking a genuine question out of curiosity? Was he being sarcastic? Or was he asking the question in desperation, following a lifelong, exhausting search for the truth? We don't know. What we do know is that he didn't stick around for an answer.

Philosophers have struggled with this question since the dawn of time, perhaps because it's the hardest question ever asked. The field of epistemology is the subdiscipline of philosophy that grapples it, along with the nature of knowledge itself. The question, "What do we know and how do we know it?" occupies the mind of the epistemologist.

The prevailing theory of truth, at least among the public and certainly among scientists, is the correspondence theory, which states that truth corresponds with facts and reality. It's a good theory, especially since it's practical and governs our day-to-day interactions. If I'm holding a tart, reddish-yellow, spherical fruit, I'm holding a Cosmic Crisp apple. There is no alternative theory of truth that could convince me that it's a limousine. Likewise, business contracts, the judicial system, and society as a whole are built around the idea that truth corresponds to reality.

Many scientists would take this a step further and argue that the scientific method is the foremost system for determining facts. Therefore, science is the best tool to determine reality and truth. But this is where things start to get tricky.

At least two philosophers have presented substantial challenges to the epistemic privilege of science. In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), David Hume argues that inductive logic is unjustified. Inductive logic is the process of making observations and then drawing larger conclusions from limited data. When astrophysicists make a claim like, "All stars are flaming balls of hydrogen and helium," that grand, sweeping claim is based on observing lots and lots of stars and observing the same thing over and over again. But they haven't observed all the stars in the universe. Further, there is no guarantee that future stars will resemble past stars. So how can they really know for sure?

That might sound like a childish objection, but consider this: At one time, Europeans believed that all swans are white. After all, everywhere they looked, they saw white swans. The swans on the river, the swans on the lake — all white. But then, one intrepid European (Willem de Vlamingh) went to Australia in 1697 and saw black swans. In this instance, inductive logic failed. This is the basis of Hume's argument that inductive logic is unjustified.

Immanuel Kant

<a dir="ltr" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology#/media/File:Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg">Credit </a>: Public domain via Wikipedia

In his Critique of Pure Reason (1781), Immanuel Kant provides another challenge: It is impossible for humans to distinguish between reality (what he called the "noumenon") and our perception of reality (what he called the "phenomenon"). The reason is because our experience of reality is filtered through our minds. When I look at a basketball and see that it is orange, how do I know that it really is orange? The photons that bounce off the ball and stimulate the cells in my retina trigger a series of electrochemical reactions in my nervous system that results in my brain interpreting the color as orange. But how do I know that my brain is right? What if basketballs are actually green, but our brains misinterpret the color as orange?

Though Karl Popper's theory of falsification is a really good counterargument, there are no dispositive responses to these challenges, which is why scientists generally respond with, "Buzz off, philosophers." Stephen Hawking claimed that philosophy is dead (apparently unaware that the scientific method is rooted in epistemology). To bolster their case, scientists boast that they put people on the moon and gave us really cool things like iPads, non-stick skillets, and Viagra. Sure, Hume and Kant made some clever remarks a long time ago, but science works.

Chapter 1.4: Karl Popper and the logic of falsification

The hardest question ever asked: What is truth?

The prevailing theory of truth

Inductive logic

When science can't answer big questions

CURATED BY

Related collections

More like this