Can science be truth if it is constantly changing?

Question

i dont want this one to be something ugly, but informative.

id just like to say some people here are giving extremely good answers, and some people here need to think awhile before they write something.
note:
2 is a label, for some sort of arrangement. if i have a (one) pizza, and my brother has a (one) pizza, we both (two) have a pizza. we need to give labels, instead of saying "we both have a pizza". lol-im stupid or what...

Answer 1

Sometime you just have to sift through these answers to realize that they are all answers never the less.

I believe that constant change is the truth. Better to be flexible, easier to bend with the forces of change, rather than rigid.

Rigid breaks when flexed.

Answer 2

It is an important question with which philosophers of science - and thoughtful scientists - continue to struggle. How are we to look at the failed theories which litter the history of science and have confidence that the theories we have now are correct? Isn't it a safer bet that 100 years from now scientists will look upon the theories we have now as being woefully inadequate?

This is the special problem of whether or not there is such a thing as scientific progress, and if science somehow 'tracks' truth.

Karl Popper got the ball rolling on this topic for academic philosophers of the 20th century. He was followed by Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lacatos, Larrry Laudan, Bas van Fraassen and Philip Kitcher, among others.

Here are two very oversimplified responses to this problem:

Scientific Realists say 'yes', and defend their position using the No Miracles Argument. Science, they say, is really good at giving us tangible, technological progress. It would be a miracle if this progress came from false theories.

Anti-realists use an Underdetermination Argument. They say 'so what?' Different theories about what is really happening can predict similar observations, but if more than one theory can do the job then there is no way to tell which one is true. This is particularly important when talking about theoretical objects (unobservables) such as atoms, photons, and so on.

Other arguments are also in play: not least of which is what do we mean by a 'true' scientific theory.

Rather than explain these positions in depth, I've cited below important authors who have dealt with this issue. A search of "scientific progress" and "philosophy of science" in any search engine will get you more.

Answer 3

Science does not claim to supply "truth". Theories are based on observations, predictions, and experiments. As technology reveals further details corrections can be made. A great example of this is Newtonian physics, which was accepted by scientists for hundreds of years, until flaws started showing up, and relativity proved more accurate.

Does this mean Newton's physics is false? No, it is still useful - in fact, for most purposes more useful than relativity. Is relativity "truth"? I doubt any scientist who understands it would say that. For now it is the best explanation that we have.

And, since when is religion unchanging? I seem to recall stories about burning apostates at the stake, witch hunting, Copernicus and Galileo forbidden to publish, priests can or can't marry, divorce is or is not accepted... the list goes on and on.

And science and religion certainly can coexist. No knowledgeable person denies that Einstein was a deeply religious man, and many other scientists express strong religious sentiment, some inside organized religion and some outside. (Hawkings also speaks feelingly of God). The fact that science language is Latin based reflects its origins in the church.

Science has no problem coexisting with religion. Religion, on the other hand, often cannot accept demonstrable facts, or even theories that fall outside of their canon. Religion is not "truth", unless you are claiming every other religion is a lie. It is a system of beliefs and values that a person finds satisfying in explaining the deep questions of life.

Answer 4

Science is based on myths that scientists like to believe (for instance, no scientist in the world can PROVE that 2+2=4. They just take that to be true and go from there). What is the OBJECTIVE value of $1? 20 years ago, $1 bought a gallon of gas, in Miami. Ten thousand years from now, $1 bill may be worth a ton of gold. Science is never scientific.

This is not to say that the things it says are untrue. For instance, I could say that the world is round without ever having verified it and still be RIGHT. 100 million years from now, however, the world could be flat and whoever said that the world was flat (at that time) would be right too. Change does not nullify truth. Truth is a concept that is located in time and space. On your fifth birthday, it would be true to say you are 5 years old. On your 85th birthday it would be true to say you are 85 years old. The truth has changed, over time.

But, in any case, science is not concerned with truth, only with logic. And things that SHOULD be logically true are often, in fact, not true at all. For instance, logically it makes sense that if you speak English perfectly and I speak English perfectly, and we both have about the same level of intelligence and experience, we should be able to understand each other perfectly. But, as we all know, that is not always true.

Answer 5

Science is an objective probability. It uses the senses to test assumptions and hypotheses, objectively, using rigorous methods. Rarely are things found, using solid methods, to be highly probable (say .05% or .01% error) and then are later found to not be. When science is wrong, it is because of flawed methods, not controlling for confounding variables, or mucked with data. Good science, say gravity, isn't constantly changing. Science is also refined as it is replicated, which is the heart of the "truth", anyone using the proper methods can make it happen again, and it's not "true" until it has been replicated.
Science is nothing more than a means to explaining our external world, within a range of probabilities. It never says something is 100% true or that something is ever false, just the probability that an explanation for a known, repeatable phenomenon is high or low.

Answer 6

The findings change, but science doesn't.

Sometimes mistakes are corrected, or additional information is discovered, or theories are refined. All that shows is that science is constantly improving itself.

Science depends on the available evidence, the sophistication of the tools that scientists use, or the ways that scientists try to look at the universe. The "changes" are merely ever-closer approaches to truth.

Religion, on the other hand, decides on a "truth" without the need for evidence at all. If evidence is found that supports the religion, its followers trumpet it. If evidence is found that contradicts the religion, its followers discredit it. But religion needs no evidence, and that's why it never "changes."

Answer 7

How about a relative truth. It's relativity stems from the tools that scientists have to work with during the experimental process. As we make technological advances science will become more accurate therefore it is ever changing.

Answer 8

to answer ur ? correctly u have look at it for what it is, not as a form of belief. science is not an exact science. does that make sense to everyone. alot of things has to be rediscovered. plus there is politics that has to be dealt with. and it should not be. when politics becomes involved in anything we humans do any more it becomes tainted beyond recognition. the people are being manipulated by politics[ which means $] greed, pure & simple. people are scared to say anything any more.

Answer 9

There was something written by Asimov (I think) on the matter. I can't recall it verbatim, here's what my memory says anyway...

Saying the world was flat was wrong, saying the world was spherical was also wrong. But if you think they are both equally wrong you're not even wrong.

(The earth is slightly flattened at the poles)

A process of refinement and healthy discourse on areas of uncertainty make it the closest means of ascertaining truth we have.

If you're looking for absolute truth I think the Tooth Fairy is douching with it. If it isn't there look in Santa's medicine chest.

Answer 10

Science is a process of constant revelation and discovery.

My father's college physics book (1933) stated that uranium had no practical use. That was best revelation of the truth at the time.