Posts Tagged ‘Royal Society’

Inside Knowledge: How to Tell Truth from Lies

April 7, 2017

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Tiffany O’Callaghan in the Features section of the 1 Apr 2017 New Scientist.  This article notes there are hardcore relativist philosophers who argue that there’s no such thing as objective truth that exists outside our minds.  This is absurd.  What they might be intending to mean, and is something that HM thinks, is that we shall never find objective truth (see the immediately preceding post that follows this one, blog style).  Science is a systematic method for achieving an increasingly better understanding of objective truth.  The risk in believing that one has objective truth is the same as having beliefs having certainty.  They blind us to other better options.

Very often in both science and math, simplifying assumptions are made to make the research problem tractable.  These simplifying assumptions are necessary and bring us closer to objective truth.  However, it must always be remembered that these results were obtained using simplifying assumptions.

Unfortunately, we live in a world in which there are businesses devoted to making lies (see the healthy memory blog post, “Lies, Inc.”).

Steve Sloman says that as individuals, we hardly know anything.  “But most of us do very well, and as a society we create incredible things.  We sent  a person to the moon.  How is this possible”?  Because of the knowledge of other people.”

The article presents the following advice for treading the fine line between healthy skepticism and destructive cynicism.  “First, think critically and assess the credentials, track record and potential bias of the sources we rely on.” wrote Peter van Inwagen. He continues, “If someone is telling me this, what motives could that person have for wanting me to believe that, other than that it’s true?”

We should ask how do we know?  How do they know? We need to ask ourselves whether our reaction to new knowledge is rooted in something trustworthy or something else, like wishful thinking.  Those not believing in global warming in spite of scientific evidence might require them to do a certain amount of rather inconvenient stuff, stuff that would have financial costs, so they really rather not believe and start to make the sacrifices we would all have to make.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Inside Knowledge: What Makes Scientific Knowledge Special

April 6, 2017

The title of this post is identical to an article by Michael Brooks in the Features Section of the 1 Apr 2017 New Scientist.   The article begins, “NULIUS in verba:  “take nobody’s word for it”.  This is the motto of the Royal Society, the UK’s national academy of science.  This encapsulates the spirit of scientific inquiry.  The article continues, “Thanks to what science tells us about human physiology, the universe’s history, nature’s forces and Earth’s geology, flora and fauna, we know the earth isn’t flat, the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, and that there are no dragons or unicorns.  We live longer and in more comfort, and can send space probes to the edge of the universe.

But there are people who still contend the earth is flat.  Other people say the universe is 6000 years old.  Still others doubt the the theory of evolution by natural selection.  And there are people who question the reality of human-made climate change.  Unfortunately, some of these people are in positions of power like Donald Trump and his appointees.  For this, HM apologizes to the rest of the world.  However, a majority of the American voters did not vote for Trump.  Trump did not win the popular vote. He was elected by an electoral college, an institution developed to deny the principle of one citizen, one vote.

What is worse is there is an industry devoted to publishing and promoting scientific lies (see the healthy memory blog post, “Lies, Inc).  It needs to be understood that the scientific facts cited above could change.  Science is always an approximation of the truth.  Absolute truth is a destination we will likely never reach.  But to change science, experiments that produce data are required.  And there must be a means of disproving scientific theories.  There must be a way of disproving creationism, or it is not a scientific theory.  And there are arguments that question human-made climate change.  Unfortunately, some of these arguments come from Lies, Inc.  However, to be fair, there are scientists who question not the effects of humans on climate change, but on the rate at which these effects are taking place.  In this case, the opinion goes to the majority of research that argues climate change is real and is increasing at an alarming rate.

Philosopher Edward Hall of Harvard says “Authority in science is earned—at least, when a scientific community is functioning well—by  predicting and more generally at analyzing empirical phenomena.”

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.