Thinking Scientifically to Find the Truth
Humanity has been searching for the truth since the beginning of time. This search has produced many things like science, which has greatly advanced the cause that created it. There are many inherent problems in science, and it is not necessary to think scientifically in order to find the truth. There are many types of truth, but the most fascinating one is absolute truth. The basics elements of science, however, make it almost impossible for science alone to find this kind of truth. There are many other tools at our disposal that can be used along with science and the scientific method in the search for the ultimate truth.
In talking about truth and the search for it, we must first define what truth is, what makes something true, and the distinction between what is true, and the "truth". "What is truth?" has been an important question asked by many philosophers throughout history, and there are many ways of looking at it. Truth can be described as the quality of being true, and anything that is true is a truth. Thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and opinions are said to be true or false. An idea makes a truth claim and is true when the character of what is thought about upholds its claim. Truth can be a relative term, since men create words and the words create the truth. It can also be very subjective, since different people look at things differently. Take for example a mad scientist who wants to get revenge on all the people that laughed at his approach at finding the truth. He somehow manages to contaminate all the water in the world, and everyone that drinks it hallucinates about flying saucers. Everyone will believe that they saw a flying saucer, that it is true that it ex...
... middle of paper ...
... are both looking for the same thing.
The search for the absolute and unchanging truth has been one of the most important driving forces behind human advancement. Science is an outgrowth of this, and has recently been one of the largest influences in this search. The scientific method is good in many ways since it is very objective and is based on facts and empirical data. At the same time, it is limited by the things it is based because if these basic assumptions are false, then the whole theory and method can gravely mislead us. Of course there are many other ways of thinking and searching for the truth, and maybe a combination of these will eventually lead us to the ultimate truth. We may never be able to find or comprehend the basic truths of the universe, if they exist at all, or we may have already found the ultimate truth, but just don't know it yet.
The overall goal of science is to be able to gain an understanding of the phenomena being studied by conducting different scientific investigations that create knowledge that qualifies one or more of the three levels of understanding.
Rebecca Skloot’s novel, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks told the story of the injustice done a a young African American woman, and her family. Henrietta’s cancerous cells were taken from her without her consent, and turned out to be immortal. They were sold all over the world for billions of dollars, while her family, struggling to put food on the table, did not receive a penny of it. Rebecca Skloot uncovers the hidden story of the HeLa cells, and provides a novel not only highly informational, but also with insight to the workings of science. This book outlines the process of scientific inquiry, reveals the contrary forces of altruism and profit that influenced HeLa, and the risks and benefits of profit guiding research as well as the obstacles faced when conducting research for purely altruistic reasons.
Science is the knowledge gained by a systematic study, knowledge which then becomes facts or principles. In the systematic study; the first step is observation, the second step hypothesis, the third step experimentation to test the hypothesis, and lastly the conclusion whether or not the hypothesis holds true. These steps have been ingrained into every student of science, as the basic pathway to scientific discovery. This pathway holds not decision as to good or evil intention of the experiment. Though, there are always repercussions of scientific experiments. They range from the most simplistic realizations of the difference between acid and water to the principle that Earth is not the center of the Universe. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein depicts this very difference in the story of Victor Frankenstein. A scientist who through performing his experiments creates a monster which wreaks havoc upon humanity. Frankenstein concentrating wholly upon discovery ignores the consequences of his actions.
More recent studies show another evidence of absolute truth is science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge. All scientific studies believe that there are objective realities existing in the world and theses realities are discovered and proven. Without absolute what would researchers study? The laws of Science are found on absolute truth.
“Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away”- Elvis Presley. In my mind, truth is defined as being in accordance with fact or reality. There will always be truth to every situation, as it is only possible for something to occur in one specific way. The problem encompassing the idea of truth is the reality that only one retelling of a specific situation can be the full truth. Each individual interprets situations differently. For this reason, in order for the truth to be told, one must simply state what was seen, leaving their personal emotions out of the situation. A story can be said to be true when it accurately portrays the account of which is being told.
Truth, what is truth? This question itself has a thousand answers, no person can ever be sure of what truth is rather, truth can be justified, it can checked for reliability with strong evidences and logic. If the evidence proves to be accurate then it can be established that a certain answer is the truth. However, have we ever tried to think about what intrigues us to seek the truth? To think about a question and set foot firmly on the path of knowledge. Definitely it has! That was the very cause itself which is why this world has witnessed some of the greatest philosophers like Aristotle, Plato and Socrates etc. along with the school of thought. The ability to think and reason is one of the greatest ability humans have, it is what distinguishes us from the animals. It is what gives us free will, the ability to control our own outcomes. However, it is that ability to ‘think’ itself which has caused men to rebel with the myths and statements established about the unseen and natural forces since the beginning of time. It gave rise to questions such as: Do aliens exist? Is there a world of the unseen? Life after Death and the most popular question since the beginning of times, Does God exists? And the answer is ‘yes’. Here is how I will justify my stance.
What exactly is “truth”? And how do we arrive at the truth? Over these past weeks I have successfully be able to study two different but very closely linked methods of arriving at what we human beings know as truth. Introduced to the method of pragmatism by William James, I have concluded that pragmatism uses an approach in which reason is used to find what is true but what also has to be considered is that the truth is subject to change. Which distinguishes it from Rene Descartes' method of pursuing what is true. Essentially they follow the same procedures. Although at the final moments of my research, I began to find myself pro-pragmatism. I disbelieve Descartes claim that the mind believes everything that is perceived through the human eye which leaves no room for an imagination. Both James and Descartes differ in some areas while maintaing similarities in others. Whether its concerning the way their visions are presented, their interpretations of the truth, or how applicable the idea of it is to our lives.
We, as human beings, tend to think that the truth is what we believe to be true. But the truth is the truth even if no one believes that it is the truth. We also think that the truth brings unpleasantness, and that we hate telling the truth. “The challenge of the sage is to decode the clues and solve the underlying riddle of existence, our own and that of the cosmos.” (The Sage). The relation between this quotation and my life is that, I always want to search for the truth, and telling the truth is another
Science is supposed, to tell the truth, but because humans are the ones performing the experiments sometimes there are flaws. For instance, Andre Wakefield in
It is impossible to just have one answer. There are many different ways you can get to the answer. This is what makes it complex. With science there is no one true conclusion. Scientific results are unreliable because it is exposed to subjective methodologies. Behind science is one man that still has an interest. He can dictate what he wants to inquire about. The one scientist relates to the person who is authoritative on what their child should believe in. They should be found as equally wrong. Yes, you can give your ideas about what your beliefs are, but it is up to that one person to decide whether they wish to accept it. They also have the alternative of disregarding it and accepting a different way of believing in their own conception of the world.
Can we truly know when something can be considered true or false. The truth can be something that appeals to a person, or that it can reason with a person's knowledge that they have already develop. The knowledge we possess can shape the way we think, so does this also change the in the truth that a person sees. Our knowledge also limits us to what we considered to be true. In our century every year we discover something new so our truth is constantly changing. One of the conflicts that also comes to mind when talking about true and false is whether a true belief counts as knowledge depends on inherently imprecise judgments concerning whether the believer is accidentally right. To analyze the claim I am going to look at the three different theories of truth and how in everything true there is a false aspect to it. The theories are first, the correspondence theory. Second, coherence theory, and lastly pragmatic theory.
"We often think of science as something inescapably linked to progress, and of progress as continually marching forward. We assume that there is something inevitable about the increase of knowledge and the benefits this knowledge brings" (Irvine & Russell). Provide humanity with wisdom and speculative enjoyment. This enjoyment of the public is through reading, learning and thinking. But scientists are met with the real research work.
Truth can be defined as conformity to reality or actuality and in order for something to be “true” it must be public, eternal, and independent. If the “truth” does not follow these guidelines then it cannot be “true.” Obviously in contrary anything that goes against the boundaries of “truth” is inevitably false. True and false, in many cases does not seem to be a simple black and white situation, there could sometimes be no grounds to decide what is true and what is false. All truths are a matter of opinion. Truth is relative to culture, historical era, language, and society. All the truths that we know are subjective truths (i.e. mind-dependent truths) and there is nothing more to truth than what we are willing to assert as true (Hammerton, Matthew). A thing to me can be true while for the other person it may not be true. So it depends from person to person and here the role of perception comes into play. As truth is a vital part of our knowledge, the distinctions between what is true and what is false, shape and form the way we think and should therefore be considered of utmost importance. We often face this situation in real life through our learning curves and our pursuit of knowledge to distinguish between what is true and what is false. The idea of there being an absolute truth or also known as universal truth has been debated for centuries. It depends on many factors such as reason, perception and emotion.
Science gave more to life than just understanding how the world works. The discoveries of the scientific revolution proposed great questions as to the truth of what was being taught religiously and academically. The advancements made during the revolution did great good in regards to initiating a more logical approach to explaining daily excursion and events in human life and in nature. Science also created a shift in the general order of what can and cannot be accepted. What was once understood in religion and social system as just a phenomenon that occurred without a connection or correlation to something else had changed. The people of the 17th century soon learned that there was generally a cause and effect in everything, and that certain
The human sciences and natural sciences are considered knowledge by many worldwide, as their arguments having convinced people one way or another. While the natural sciences focus on swaying belief by showing duplicable evidence through a strict and standardized methodology, the human sciences focus on explaining how things are and how they came to be using logic, reason, and an understanding of human behavior.