Science pursues truth, namely scientific truth. It does not pursue non-scientific truth, such as philosophical or political truths.

"Science pursues" testable, provisional knowledge (e.g. abduction). Only sentences are truthbearers.

Science does nothing at all. Science is the acquisition, verification and organization of facts regarding properties of the material world. (And I doubt there is such an entity as 'the truth').

Scientists, like everyone else, do make use of notions of truth. That dropped objects accelerate at around about 9.8 m/s², that plants need light to photosynthesis, such things are true.

Some methodologies turn into a hagiography of truth, only to find the mystery too great and reject their own god. But truth is a small thing. It's just what statements do.

It would be a puzzle if science were to "organise facts" that were not true. And abduction is a criminal offence.

Surely, science isn't "the pursuit of truth" but "the pursuit of truth under a particular set of circumstances", and these circumstances are what we call science.

Has the view that science is "the pursuit of truth" led to a misunderstanding of truth? Particularly in contexts such as philosophy and politics, where truth may operate under very different circumstances. — Judaka

What is the relevant quality of a scientific result? I would say it's reliability. You need to be able to rely on the prediction of what will happen, so you can base your decisions/ designs on this.

Is that a fundamental attribute of truth? I would say it is. For something to be true it must be a reliable. If something is true, this excludes surprise. It excludes a convincing argument to the contrary.

Surely, science isn't "the pursuit of truth" but "the pursuit of truth under a particular set of circumstances", and these circumstances are what we call science. — Judaka

I think this is accurate. Per Dewey, "Every science is continually learning that its supposed solutions are only "apparent" because the solution solves, not the actual problem, but one which has been made up." (Dewey, "The Relationship of Thought and its Subject Matter" in Essays in Experimental Logic) Science is conducted under conditions which are "constructed."

I've found it useful to divide the goals of science into two categories. You have knowledge/understanding of the natural world that we pursue to assuage our natural curiosity and to "make sense of the world." Then we have technology/mastery, the way in which science allows us to master cause and do things we otherwise wouldn't be free to do, e.g. fly across the world.

To distinguish these concepts in a word I figured gnosis/techne might work for easy labeling.

I would argue that techne tends to be what makes us think we've "gotten it right." If a theory enhances our causal powers such that we can do new and extraordinary things, then we are confident that our theories say something true about the world. There is a practical knowledge, "know-how," element to techne as well. Even though our theory of flight hasn't radically changed, we do continually improve the related techne for instance (e.g. thrust vectoring on the F-22, new control surfaces).

I see science as a core part of man's moral mission (to the extent we have one). Prudent judgement on policy requires gnosis and techne. Techne increases our ability to enhance all living things' well being, even if we don't use that information that way. Both make us more free. Further, gnosis seems to be a good in itself, something we enjoy for our own sake. It is a sort of transcendence, the ability to question and go beyond ourselves initial opinions, beliefs, and desires.

Just my $0.2. I think it's a mistake to separate science and technology as much as we tend do currently. Technological development, maintainance of old technology, etc. are all performative parts of the same entity.

Surely, science isn't "the pursuit of truth" but "the pursuit of truth under a particular set of circumstances", and these circumstances are what we call science… . To do science, one must ensure that their question is specific, and aspires for an answer that is specific, measurable, testable/verifiable and repeatable — Judaka

I think the key term here is ‘measurable’. Specifiability, verifiability and repeatability are not exclusive to science, but the requirement that the objects of study be mathematizable has long been considered to be a prerequisite for empirical investigation.

Agreed, science pursues knowledge. Knowledge is our most logical way of being concurrent with truth, but cannot assert that it is truth itself.

"organise facts" that were not true. — Banno

And here I was, thinking words had meanings.

Oxford: fact /fak(t)/
noun
a thing that is known or proved to be true.

If truth is just equivalent to "a complete description of what there is" then it seems to me that science is a search for truth. But under such a definition truth isn't bivalent.

Under such a definition, we approach truth as our description of the world gets more and more accurate. Thus, we could have multiple true descriptions of something like "how the Titanic sank," but some would provide a more full description than others. Full descriptions eliminate more possible worlds than less full descriptions. The fullest possible description eliminates all possible worlds except for the one that obtains.

Falsity would involve our descriptions eliminating real elements of the world from the set of possible worlds. To be false, a description must say that the set of possible worlds does not include (elements of) the world that actually obtains. So, if there was no widespread voter fraud in the US 2020 election, it would be false to claim that this occurred because such a description is consistent only with a set of possible worlds that does not include the actual world. But we could further say that something is more false when it eliminates more elements of the fullest possible description from the realm of possibility.

A full description might be something like "all you would need to simulate the universe." In an indeterminate universe, such a description might require infinite amounts of information if it is to include future events, but only a finite amount of information to describe all past events. And in this way, I think the definition might answer something about the truth value of statements about future events. The truth value of hypotheticals can be covered in a similar way, but it's more convoluted and beside the point anyhow.

Agreed, science pursues knowledge. Knowledge is our most logical way of being concurrent with truth, but cannot assert that it is truth itself. — Philosophim

:up:

SO facts are true. Well, there's that on which we might agree. and seem to know things that are not true. Tim is unhappy with small truths, wanting all or nothing.

Knowledge is fallibilistic, not platonic.

Sometimes we think we know things that are not true. We can't know something that is not true. When we think we know things that are not true, we are mistaken.

But further, not all facts are empirical. Fallibilism isn't used in arithmetic - 1+1 isn't 2 until proven otherwise. Nor does moving the bishop back to the box show that the rules of chess are false.

Truth and knowledge are very large concepts that can be subdivided into an infinite number of smaller parts that also have the same word attached to them. I know when my corn chowder is ready, but I don't have a comprehensive knowledge of soups, even less of culinary arts, and less still foodstuffs. It's true that the date where I live is either 2023 - 10-20 or the twentieth of October in the year twenty twenty-three CE, but I don't know how true or faithful this calendar is to the solar year, and I certainly am not in possession of the ultimate truth about Time.
All I can gather these little discrete pieces of true knowledge called facts, to form a mental mosaic of reality which is my provisional, malleable knowledge of the world.

Truth and knowledge are very large concepts... — Vera Mont

So you can't have the very large stuff but you can have the small stuff? Then don't worry about the very large stuff.

Some sentences are true. Any epistemology that denies this is... fraught with contradiction.

What? What other possible truth could we aim at but truth as it reveals itself to us, which, is not only relational, but must arise in specific set of circumstances.

What other options exist?

...truth as it reveals itself to us... — Manuel

What's that, then?

Ordinary science, or anything other branch of knowledge.

It's the way we interpret the data. Not for a dog or anything other species.

It's trivial.

any branch of knowledge is truth as it is revealed to us?

Are we talking about oysters again? You can't taste oysters without using your tongue, and so you can never taste oysters as they taste in themselves?

If not, then what?

Depends on the science. It's a constant approximation, subject to revision and refinement, but not finalized. I would say General Relativity is true and is quantum physics. Yet we know they are incomplete.

I doubt oysters have experience, but I can't be sure.

No, I don't have things in themselves in mind here.

I don't imagine the way we do sociology is the only way any hypothetical alien species would do sociology, or psychology or even botany.

No, I don't have things in themselves in mind here. — Manuel

Oh, good.

So we agree that at least some of what science says is true. Turned out nice again, didn't it?

Turned out nice again, didn't it? — Banno

Yes.

For now. :wink:

Some sentences are true. — Banno

Yes, if the words they contain actually convey the meaning which is both intended and apprehended.
This is why I'm particular about the use of large, comprehensive words in small, factual sentences. Since those big concepts contain so many possible specifics, the hearer can all to easily interpret a sentence as saying something quite different from what the speaker meant.

Sure, all that. But even to say that is to presume that some sentences are true - " the hearer can all to easily interpret a sentence as saying something quite different from what the speaker meant", perhaps.

And yet there is a pop episteme which claims that there are no truths. Of course, no one here would say anything of the sort - we are all too sophisticated for that!

It depends on what you mean by science. Science is based on ordinary observations, and they can often, if not always, be determined to be true or false. Scientific theories cannot be determined to be true or false, although they can be so coherent with all that we take ourselves to know and be so predictively successful as to become pretty much universally taken to be true. There are also logical and mathematical truths.

Accurate science relies on accurate observations. It may not be right to say science taken as a whole pursues truth, but some scientists may understand themselves to be pursuing truth

Science pursues truth, namely scientific truth. It does not pursue non-scientific truth, such as philosophical or political truths. — Leontiskos

So, there are all of these different types of truths, dozens of them, potentially infinite, and science pursues only one of these. Why not just say that science is the pursuit of "scientific truth" and not truth? Seems quite inefficient to say science is the pursuit of truth, but not political, philosophical, religious, moral, cultural, artistic, personal, and whatever other type of truths there are. All that just to disagree with the title of the OP?

What is the relevant quality of a scientific result? I would say it's reliability. You need to be able to rely on the prediction of what will happen, so you can base your decisions/ designs on this.

Is that a fundamental attribute of truth? I would say it is. For something to be true it must be a reliable. If something is true, this excludes surprise. It excludes a convincing argument to the contrary. — Echarmion

Reliability isn't the only relevant quality but forgetting that, conceptually, truth should be reliable, but in practice, it depends on the truth conditions. Within your argument, you use words such as "surprise" and "convincing", which are inherently unscientific. You can't measure the "convincingness" of an argument, right? If I find your argument convincing, that's no guarantee that someone else will. You could make the same argument with "reliability" itself.

The quality of truth is dependent upon the truth conditions. Truths can have various truth conditions and have various qualities, right?

Science pursues truth, namely scientific truth. It does not pursue non-scientific truth, such as philosophical or political truths. — Leontiskos

"Science" is an abstraction. Right?

It's people who pursue truths. Scientific or otherwise. Right?

If truth is just equivalent to "a complete description of what there is" then it seems to me that science is a search for truth. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's definitely not what truth is. Science makes use of language where truths are inherently pragmatic and goal-orientated. We can test the "effectiveness of X" or "compare the effectiveness of X and Y". It might be true that method X is effective if it fulfils the objective, and true that another method is superior because it can be done faster and more cheaply. We want methods that better accomplish our many goals, such as being more environmentally friendly or safer for workers and so on.

I get the sense that you're splitting the impractical and the practical in a way that misrepresents truth, what do you say to that?

"Is it true that X election contained widespread voter fraud" is a question we can ask, but how we understand and measure "voter fraud" is tied to our goals and values, it's practical. We'd want to know if the election was compromised. We'd need to have an understanding of what it meant for it to be true that an "election has been compromised". This is not some kind of worldly truth to uncover.

Techne increases our ability to enhance all living things' well being, even if we don't use that information that way. Both make us more free. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Power makes one more free, isn't that all it is? And it doesn't necessarily make "us" more free, but just whoever has that power.

I don't think that for one to do science requires any particular reason or motive, and I have a hard time thinking you'd disagree with that, not sure what to make of your comments then.