9 Answers

  1. Real science does not know the truth. Truth is generally out of the field of view of science, because this concept belongs more to religion or philosophy, but science has nothing much to do with it. The relative objectivity of knowledge is what science tries to study, according to Popper.

    The true scientific identity, factor of consolidation and result should therefore be called rather agnosticism, because from ignorance science begins and the same ignorance forces science to be a science, i.e. to seek this most objective knowledge. And here it would be a profound mistake to shift the center of gravity from the process to the result, because the latter, i.e., knowledge itself in science is constantly being revised and revolutionized, so that science learns more than it knows.

    Another thing is that various scientists and atheists, for example, make a cult out of science (at the same time, they often have nothing to do with science, like scientism and atheism itself, which even contradict the philosophy of science). For example, an academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences recently wrote an answer to TQ that he believes in a miracle, and they immediately attacked him with accusations and insults, including the Academy of Sciences itself. And all because where something (including science itself) does not correspond to the worldview of the scientist, he fanatically closes his eyes to what he is unpleasant to see and accuses such a picture of unscientific. We've seen it before somewhere, haven't we? Well, of course, this is religious fanaticism.

    This is exactly what Ernest Mach, one of the ideologues of positivism, complained about, saying that “Science has become a church” with all this characteristic obscurantism and intolerance, as the worst manifestations of the cult.

  2. Because it is based on knowledge. And so, like nothing else, it expresses itself with its precision and definiteness about the knowable. For which the ancient Greek philosopher Plato characterizes it (knowledge) in such a way that “it is infallible.” And as we read about him in another (ancient Greek) philosopher Aristotle: “Some agree with [Socrates]in one thing… that nothing is higher than knowledge.”

    After all, having knowledge about something means that our concepts and representations (or the same knowledge) about what we have known express (and represent) the known as it really exists, i.e., by itself (without relation to the subject-knower). And it is clear that such a connection (between the knower and the known), established by this knowledge, undoubtedly presupposes an adequate, i.e. harmonious and, most importantly, objective relationship between the subject (man) and the object (nature, the world).

    Thus, knowledge can be called the only tool or, figuratively speaking, the key that more (than anything else) opens the entrance to an objective and consistent relationship with it. For again, all this is presupposed by the very essence and nature of knowledge.

    The next most important feature of knowledge is that it belongs to a person, or more precisely, to his soul, i.e., to the essence of a rationalistic (rational) nature. This suggests that the basis of its essence is the mind. As noted by the Roman philosopher Boethius: “Thus, reasonableness… is inherent in man in itself,” or even so: “… “reasonable” forms the substance of man.”

    Consequently, his soul, thinking, consciousness, and worldview, and with them his knowledge, are rationalistic. And, having all this or being such, a person is able to think philosophically about everything, set himself tasks, goals and try to implement them. And again, he can achieve this in the necessary way, relying on this knowledge and science.

    And yet it must be borne in mind that the objective nature of knowledge has its strength and dignity in the fact that it is in the power of reason and, consequently, subordinated to it. What does the mind mean by its active essence (as philosophers think) through the human soul and (consciousness)? <and> affects everything natural. Although we sometimes have a different opinion, as if we ourselves apply our knowledge as we see fit. Which, of course, is one of our misconceptions.

    In this connection, the question can also be raised: why does knowledge (and science) have all this? The explanation for this may again be the most trivial. Behind its essence (and nature) is the mind. Of course, we are referring to the universal and objective reason that is at the root of everything… As we should know, the ancients defined it as an (almost) absolute entity, i.e., one for which no change is possible (the ancient philosopher Plotinus says: “Reason exists without change”; it is “… simple, unmixed and pure” — Anaxagoras, the ancient Greek philosopher). In short, it is an entity that represents what is absolutely stable, stable.

    Therefore, the first question must be answered: because behind all this is the very essence and principle of universal (and objective) reason. It gives rise to the corresponding principles, which are applied in everything — both in life and in knowledge. Therefore, the philosopher Aristotle (i) notes that “for [first]principles there is a mind”, and from them, according to Kant, “there are principles in our mind”, and also ” reason also gives laws…”.

    Consequently, having this foundation and with it the appropriate support, how can one not show such [self -] confidence in knowledge and science?

    Although, it must be admitted (and) today, such statements do not seem quite scientific and, therefore, additional research, justification, evidence and, finally, definitely speaking, the same more <strict> knowledge, scientific knowledge is required. But again, in the absence of the latter, we can (also) refer to appropriate intuitions, ideas…

  3. Science does not know the truth. Science can be wrong. But unlike religion, science is based not just on belief in something,but on many, many studies. Yes, it may happen that in a few decades or hundreds of years some statements in certain sciences will change,but again this is due to research, and not to a simple “I said so because it is so”.

  4. SELF-CONFIDENCE dominates the absolute majority of people in all spheres of life-even if there is no reason to do so.

    Science, however, has a colossal general practical trump card-Scientific Success – in solving practical and theoretical problems of life on earth – mainly momentary and conjunctural problems .

    This serious reason for pride, however, generates excessive unhealthy self-confidence.

    Science can and should be much more productive-by many times, at least, and by orders of magnitude, at most-this is still the frozen potential of Science.

  5. Science cannot be self-confident-it is the truth, if you look at it from my point of view. And I look at it from the point of view of infinite knowledge of our world.Knowledge that will end only when this light ends. “So it's people who are overconfident because they think they've learned enough already to ignore the endless ignorance that they can never overcome. As Socrates said:” I know I don't know anything.”

  6. Indeed, many laypeople who attach themselves to science, after reading the latest hype news and not checking how old news from the same sources was justified in practice, confidently declare that nothing else is worth their attention.

    At the same time, really big scientists, on the contrary, constantly remind us of the imperfection of our knowledge, failed predictions, discovered logical errors and paradoxes. But such articles do not sell well and few people read them.

    Even at school, we only solve problems that have a solution based on the completed program. Even if the problem in real life would be solved differently, in most cases children are taught to abstract from these annoying inconsistencies and solve according to the template they have just mastered. Almost no attention is paid to the differences between the real world and the simplified model. At best, when asked by the most curious, they say, ” This is what you will be doing in the nth grade.”

    But in reality, even the weather forecast leaves much to be desired. And this is in physics.�

    In economics, sociology, or, even more so, in political science – in general, frankly, obscurantism, generously mixed up in dogmas and generously funded by lobbying groups. It is the same in medicine with initially biased research customers.

    So it is not so much science that is self-confident, but rather the scoundrels who attach themselves to it in all spheres-from education to business, and the philistines who are uncritical of their self-love.

    And it really would not hurt for all of us to moderate our pride and also to respect other forms of knowledge in the form of historically formed traditions, which often proved to be vital for the survival of entire peoples in specific real – world conditions (many of which science is still discovering, and it is not even known how many have not yet been discovered). And not to be moved by the race of spherical horses in a vacuum, although even with this we still have problems.

  7. Science doesn't work with truth. Science works with facts.

    At the moment, the scientific approach is the only one that has evidence-based power. Unfortunately, no alternative to it has yet been found.

  8. Science does not know the “truth”. Science learns the laws of nature. There is a different principle: not a state, but a process, not the possession of some higher wisdom, but the process of cognition. Feel the difference.

  9. Let's turn to the definition of science:

    Science is a field of human activity aimed at developing and systematizing objective knowledge about reality. The basis of this activity is the collection of facts, their constant updating and systematization, critical analysis and, on this basis, the synthesis of new knowledge or generalizations that not only describe the observed natural or social phenomena, but also allow you to build causal relationships with the final goal of forecasting. Those hypotheses that are supported by facts or experiments are formulated in the form of laws of nature or society.

    In other words, the meaning of science is to find the truth through the algorithm that does not allow false teachings, described in the definition.

Leave a Reply