Does something that is true need replicable scientific evidence to remain true?

Question

I am not necessarily talking about God, I mean of any truth.

My thoughts are if something is true, it is true whether Man says it is or not. Gravity was always gravity. We just gave it a name.

My point about gravity is that people didn't believe it existed before it was proven. Yet there it was, all along.

Answer 1

Generally if it has been replicated enough (this is by diverse standards) it remains true, saving the discovery of replicable evidence to the contrary.

Answer 2

It depends on the perspective of the beholder. Your concept of truth may differ from one person to the next. Some may need evidence, some may need to just believe. Its whatever floats your boat. This is the problem between Science and Religion. Both are looking for the same truth of life and creation and yet they both took different paths to find it. If a person has evidence, is that ever good enough? If a person beleives in faith, is that ever justifiable?

Not to be funny but it seems that "You can handle the truth". As a matter of fact, none of us can. Their is always so much doubt in the world and their is never enough faith that the truth becomes too hard to accept.

Scientific evidence supposedly proved O.J. Simpson was innocent and yet i still beleive that he was guilty.

Get what im saying.... Truth is what you want it to be. Whether its scientific evidence that proves it or your own faith thats helps you find the truth. Science isnt gonna convince a catholic to become atheist. As long as you believe its the truth, who is to tell you its not?

Answer 3

Let me say this about that. I'm a lawyer, and a judge. I earn my living trying to discern truth. God knows truth. People only know evidence. Replication is the foundation of the scientific method, and that is what allows us to develop theory from mere experience. It's my basic problem with the Bible. You can tell me that some virgin gave birth to some guy who died and came back to life, but it's just a tall tale to me unless you can repeat it.

Answer 4

Applying physical laws to the metaphysical is problematic logic.

Gravity affects physical objects in a physical universe. What is the effect of gravity on your thoughts or emotions? Confusing the two are likely to bring forward issues.

I can test gravity -- so it can be replicated. How do I test your thoughts or your feelings, or your beliefs?

Answer 5

I don't know, I think know one really knows or has a "right" answer to that question. Because truth in essence is given life through belief. Therefore if you believe it to be true it doesn't truly need to be repliacated. This of course is a philiosopical answer to your question. In a modern scientific sense the answer is yes. In order for it to be true you shouyld be able to replicate it. Any theory, process, etc

Answer 6

As long as one truly believes something is true, regardless of whether it is backed by scientific evidence, it is true. For something to be "true", though a bit ironic, is an opinion. For example. If I were to point at a pen and say "This pen is blue." Though it might be backed with scientific evidence, ect. A color blind person could point to the same pen and say "This pen is purple."

Answer 7

No. Easiest possible example.
Rene Descartes 'Cognito ergo sum' (I think therefore I am).
Quick definition of the argument (probably poor, but look it up)
Even if an evil genius is creating my thoughts to make me think there is a reality, he is doing such an action upon me... therefore I must exist.

No science required.. just logic. If you think, you exist. Can I prove you exist.. nope, only you. It's not a very significant truth in that so far nothing else can be built upon it, but it is a truth without any science.

peace

Answer 8

I am reminded how when Albert Einstien deduced his theory of relativity and a team of german scientists wanted to disprove his theory.

he asked them if he was wrong, wouldn't they need only one?