• Corvus
    4.7k
    I am not interested in participating in a discussion on this at the moment.T Clark

    OK, fair enough.
  • Janus
    17.9k
    I still don't see an argument that supports a conclusion that any particular metaphysics or presupposition is needed in order to do science. — Janus


    Clearly, I disagree, although many people feel is you do.
    T Clark

    I don’t see it that way. Science looks for knowledge—not the same as truth. And as Collingwood wrote: — T Clark

    Knowledge sounds too subjective and loose. Science is a rigorous subject which pursues verified truth on reality and universe. My knowledge on Astronomy is rudimentary. I wouldn't say it has much to do with Science.
    Corvus

    I agree with T Clark that science is the search for knowledge―for knowing how things work―and not for truth. This is so because scientific theories cannot be proven to be true, and even whether they can be definitively falsified is apparently a matter of debate among philosophers of science. By "theory" I am not referring to observational posits. If I say "all swans are white" that can be falsified by discovering one swan of a different colour. If I say "there are black swans" that can be verified by discovering one black swan.

    So, it seems we can say that the observation of nature is concerned with what appears to be the case, and that could count as a search for truth. With complex theories like relativity, and QT, it seems to be more about a search for what works. We cannot directly observe the warping of spacetime or the collapse of the wave-function, and it seems that what is the case, or truth, is relevant only to what can be confirmed or dis-confirmed by direct observation or mathematics and logic.

    If we understand science to be simply involved in coming to understand how things seem to work, then what would you cite as being a necessary presupposition underpinning that investigation?
  • Corvus
    4.7k
    I was seeking some knowledge on Astronomy. I bought a telescope, and watched the Moon surface in order to have some knowledge on the Moon. Is that a Science?

    I know how to ride a bike. My knowledge on how to ride bike has increased since I bought a new bike. Is my knowledge on the bike a Science? Surely not. Knowledge can be objective and also subjective. But knowledge is not something Science or Metaphysics pursues.

    Science seeks more than knowledge. It seeks verified truths and laws on the operations and nature of the universe.
12345Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.