I was interested on Jonathan's move into naming and discussing different philosophies (constructivism, empiricism, positivism), and had been meaning to look them up, as my dips into the history of philosophy usually leave me a little more informed, but also more confused. So, spurred on by Fergus' assertion of things that are 'fact', I did look further (in Wikipedia - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science) and I am indeed more confused, both with the number of different ideas and what they are saying, and if they are agreeing or not. Naming objects in the world is contentious enough, but trying to get a handle on what is meant by the name for a way of thinking feels like trying to grab a handful of eels. I'm attracted to what Jonathan calls constructivism (though that word is unhelpfully used for multiple different theories of knowledge), but if I read up on it, other people define it (and its defining features) differently, and I may not agree with those, or see the key differences to another theory.

In the end though, my prejudice is that I see and interpret the world through my mind, and I make up a story about it. Others do the same, and it may be that we can write something on which we appear to agree, but (a) I can't know what they are really believing and (b) I still see them as stories. Though a life-long scientist, I don't see any fundamental truths which couldn't be questioned, though I happily use them as a convenience and because they seem to work pretty well.

So I come back to Fergus' assertion that there are some things that 'are fact, but it's hard to draw the line'. That is not how I see the world or science either at a theoretical level or at a level of what experiments prove; I wonder if the best way of explaining to people if you are a teacher is always with a careful 'seems' or 'experiments suggest' - or even describe the experiment and ask the students what they think it means (allowing them to understand the foundations of the current paradigm). Or if I'm with a group of people with a similar background, we can use the words 'is' and 'fact' and 'prove' recognizing that they're shorthand (and I like the sentence in Wikipedia on Truth: "The predicate 'true' is an expressive convenience". I'm also with Richard Feynman that "We never are definitely right".

Maybe there is a line between what is 'accepted' or for which there is 'considerable evidence', and the rest, but for me it's not a line between 'proven' and 'not proven', but between 'strong evidence and fits with the rest of what we believe' and 'weaker evidence, and/or doesn't fit with other observations or theories'. And I may quite possibly be wrong.

On 17 April 2014 12:09, Fergus Ray Murray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Sorry I'm a bit late to this - I've just got back from holiday, but it's such an interesting topic that I wanted to weigh in.

What is the relation between science and truth? How should we interpret phrases like 'scientific fact'?

Several people in this conversation have suggested that science isn't really about truth, but I think it's misleading at best to disclaim any relation between the two. For one thing, as Lee Turnpenny implied, we can probably agree that a lot of science is about discovering untruth - falsifying hypotheses, and so on. I think most scientists would go further, if it comes to it, and say that there are at least some things which have been proven by science. They are, as the t-shirt goes, true whether you believe them or not. Take these statements:

There exist things with (we call them electrons) with a mass very close to 9.10938291(40)×10⁻³¹ kg and electrical charge very close to −1.602176565×10⁻¹⁹. These things play an important role in a range of phenomena including lightning and chemical processes.

There is a chemical element (we call it carbon) which together with another element (which we call hydrogen) is capable of forming chains of various lengths, with useful and largely predictable properties; in combination with other elements, it can also form the basis of far more complex molecules.

Many diseases are caused by the actions of a class of microscopic organisms (which we call bacteria). Some of these organisms can be suppressed by the action of certain chemicals (which we call antibiotics).

I'm going to suggest that all of these statements are clearly, definitely true, although none of them are obvious. They have been proven by science; they are not in any serious doubt, and if someone were to insist otherwise, it would be reasonable to assume that they have simply failed to understand the available evidence. I'll actually go so far as to say that none of these claims are in any serious danger of being overturned by future scientific theories or evidence - although perhaps our understanding of such terms as 'thing' and 'organism' could stand to be refined in the future.

However, it is less clear to me where exactly we should stop, if we go down this road. For example, is the theory of evolution open to question? The laws of thermodynamics? Probably not, right? What about anthropogenic climate change? The bases for rejecting homoeopathy out of hand? The big bang? Inflation? And how far should we expect people to accept scientific claims that they do not fully understand? For that matter, how much scepticism should we personally maintain about any scientific consensus outside of our own fields?

- Fergus Ray Murray
(a trainee science teacher)
http://oolong.co.uk

On 12 April 2014 14:35, Jonathan Bishop <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I am really pleased to see other scientists having this discussion. It has been lonely at times trying to explain to laypersons that the empiricist and positivist philosophies of science are not the only ones.

My philosophy of science has been founded on constructivism - the idea that one cannot separate researcher from research and any claims to objectivity and eliminating researcher bias are flawed from the outset. You just have to look at factor analysis to see that empirically collected data using a positivist analysis can produce outcomes that will have been based on a rotation which most fits the outcome the researcher wants.

Here are some paradoxes:
A constructivist's philosophy of science is that each person has their own version of the truth - but that in itself is a version of the truth!
An empiricist believes that that truth comes from objectively observing the materialist elements of the environment. But to do that requires internal thoughts to interpret them.

A positivist believes that objective methods such as verified statistical tests provide the truth in the way that internal thoughts however logical cannot. But the equations they are using came from the logical thinking of the humans that created them.

Often laypersons believe that the empiricist approach needed in natural science is "science". They also often think, as has been said, that anything described as science must have been through a positivist approach making it therefore "true."

What is worse for me as a constructivist is when someone presents their version of the truth as if it is *the* truth!

Of course this post is just my version of the truth - or if Neil's truth is right, my belief! :-)

Jonathan Bishop BSc(Hons), MSc, MScEcon

Le samedi 12 avril 2014, Neil Stoker <[log in to unmask]> a écrit :

"Truth' is too entwined with 'belief'. Beliefs abound, but - from a scientific standpoint - no belief warrants respect."
"I have also thought (science) could be seen as a belief system in as such that we choose to believe in the empirical evidence. "

No belief warrants respect? I'd be surprised if your world view is not packed to the brim with beliefs (mine is!). My take on it is that beliefs are irrelevant ultimately, but they are the way humans function - and it may be impossible for us to function without them. A bit like the visible spectrum and 'colour' being an artifact of the way we are made. How we deal with our own beliefs, and those of others, is a mixture of our nature, our culture, and our personal experiences/preferences, and science is just a way of questioning beliefs.

Whether you respect your own or anyone else's beliefs is a product of your own belief system. There's quite a strong strand in most cultures that we can or should change our own beliefs, or those of others, that aren't 'popular' or 'correct' in some way, which I think is arrogant and ultimately futile - though again very human. If the scientific approach is more useful to us, and we live by it, then others might start to find it attractive (or not), but it doesn't result in people living without beliefs.

**********************************************************************
Commands - send an email (any subject) to [log in to unmask] with one of the following messages (ignoring text in brackets)
• set psci-com nomail (to stop receiving messages while on holiday) • set psci-com mail (to resume getting messages) • signoff psci-com (to leave the list) • Subscribe here https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=psci-com

Contact list owner at [log in to unmask] Small print and JISCMail acceptable use policy the small print | pscicomjiscmail

**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
Commands - send an email (any subject) to [log in to unmask] with one of the following messages (ignoring text in brackets)
• set psci-com nomail (to stop receiving messages while on holiday) • set psci-com mail (to resume getting messages) • signoff psci-com (to leave the list) • Subscribe here https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=psci-com
Contact list owner at [log in to unmask] Small print and JISCMail acceptable use policy https://sites.google.com/site/pscicomjiscmail/the-small-print
**********************************************************************

--
http://oolong.co.uk

**********************************************************************
Commands - send an email (any subject) to [log in to unmask] with one of the following messages (ignoring text in brackets)
• set psci-com nomail (to stop receiving messages while on holiday) • set psci-com mail (to resume getting messages) • signoff psci-com (to leave the list) • Subscribe here https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=psci-com
Contact list owner at [log in to unmask] Small print and JISCMail acceptable use policy https://sites.google.com/site/pscicomjiscmail/the-small-print
**********************************************************************

Commands - send an email (any subject) to [log in to unmask] with one of the following messages (ignoring text in brackets)

• set psci-com nomail (to stop receiving messages while on holiday) • set psci-com mail (to resume getting messages) • signoff psci-com (to leave the list) • Subscribe here https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=psci-com