if the premise is plausible and the conclusion agrees, do you have truth?

Answer 1

Unfortunatley no... For example ages ago the people would look at the sky and see the stars rotating around the earth. They came to the conclusion that the earth was the center of the universe. Truth cannot come from science. As we learn more and more our knowledge of things change... the earth is no longer considered flat.... There are more modern examples but it's late on a Saturday night and I can't think of any at the moment.... Any way. The only truth we can acheive in this life is direct revelation from God. Now I say DIRECT revelation because the Bible is revelation from God but it has be translated and copied and changed so many times that there are human fallacies in it. Truth is absolute and the only being capable of declaring truth is God himself.

Answer 2

Truth is an absolute. Logic is grounded in the relative. A hypothesis and conclusion are relative events, and thus one has a relative, or conventional truth, but there is no way to prove such a thing true in an absolute sense. Science works in this way, the theories we have now are good, but they can be surmounted by others in the future which retain the relative truths of theories in the past. The main determinant in the case of science is whether or not a statement is 'useful'. "Plausible" is an interesting caveat, since it really is just a means of fortifying what you already believe. For instance if I believe disease is transmitted from one person to the next by means of invisible spirits which may possess you for a time, kill you, or leave, the results and effect of this belief are the same as if you believe invisible animals (e.g. bacteria) are responsible. To each of these people, the other's views would be implausible (What would animals have to gain by making you sick? There's no motive.) Society seems to be at a confusing point regarding this issue, since everyone seems to be looking for some sort of outside validation of their truth. Some people accept science as truth, since it appears to have a logical basis along the lines of your question. Other people take their religion as truth, since it is believed by a bunch of other people, and attempts to pierce beyond the realm of relative truth, which some people recognize. The abandonment of absolute truth in our society is almost as strange as the religions we have made to try and explain it. Here are some words of someone with greater wisdom than I:

" . . . any statement claiming to encapsulate the ultimate truth, any formulation that points to "this" or "that" as being ultimately real, is false--false for the simple reason that it is a formulation, emanating from the conceptual intelligence.
At first sight, this seems to be a form of nihilism. Apparently, it is the assertion that in the ordinary run of things we can know nothing of the truth; reality seems to be totally beyond our grasp; and Madhyamika has not infrequently been misunderstood and critisized in this way. But to say that the "absolute lies not within the realm of the intellect" does not mean that it cannot be known; it means simply that it exceeds the powers of ordinary thought and verbal expression . . ."