The Duality of Truth

[Karasuman]

I agree with Aurielius. Only machines see the world through an entirely scientific lens. I would argue there are plenty of things science does not have an answer for, and cannot quantify with logic. The scope of the universe, dreams while sleeping, abstract thoughts, etc. Science can only theorize about such things, but most likely will never provide a definitive answer, and it may be that science wasn't meant to. Edited December 29, 2010 by Karasuman

[marharth]

There are some things the human mind can never understand.

 

We think in a forward process, we can't understand how there can be a start without a start. We think that everything that has a beginning must have a end, but we can not understand how a beginning can happen without something to start that.

 

Our human mind at this point will not be able to solve certain puzzles. Our mind will have to evolve before asking the big questions and fully understanding the answer.

[Dicecaster]

@Diecaster

If you confine the concept of Universal Truth to scientific facts that are PROVEN, then I would agree with you but most of life is not so cut and dried. Any quick look at the hard sciences of let's say Paleontology or Cosmology are constantly in flux with no ultimate truth as of yet in evidence, which is why I confined myself to allowing only mathematics as an example of pure truth that could be proven.

Pretty much anything can be proven with science; the reason things are in flux is either because we don't have enough information to make an accurate logical decision, or people are too stubborn to accept the logical decision (probably the latter). Just because we can't yet find that truth doesn't mean it's not there.

 

This is too good to pass up. Anything can be proven by science? What about the deep and persistent philosophical 'truths' that have preoccupied man since his earliest point of sentience? Is this all there is? What is the purpose of life, or does it have a purpose?

Could the questions of morality versus convenience be scientifically weighed? Seeing the universe through just the prism of science is a very tunnel vision view of existence. I think that the OP had more in mind when he posed the question of Duality of Truth, than provable equations.

Science is the study of life, the universe, and everything (I'm not being sarcastic), so what I meant was that all truth is a part of nature. Now, according to the rules of the debates forum, I can't talk about religion (which is what your post is screaming for), but suffice to say I do believe all (or most) truth can be scientifically discovered, given time, and that I believe that the universe has natural laws about morality.

 

And, what to you mean by convenience? And what's OP?

[marharth]

@Diecaster

If you confine the concept of Universal Truth to scientific facts that are PROVEN, then I would agree with you but most of life is not so cut and dried. Any quick look at the hard sciences of let's say Paleontology or Cosmology are constantly in flux with no ultimate truth as of yet in evidence, which is why I confined myself to allowing only mathematics as an example of pure truth that could be proven.

Pretty much anything can be proven with science; the reason things are in flux is either because we don't have enough information to make an accurate logical decision, or people are too stubborn to accept the logical decision (probably the latter). Just because we can't yet find that truth doesn't mean it's not there.

 

This is too good to pass up. Anything can be proven by science? What about the deep and persistent philosophical 'truths' that have preoccupied man since his earliest point of sentience? Is this all there is? What is the purpose of life, or does it have a purpose?

Could the questions of morality versus convenience be scientifically weighed? Seeing the universe through just the prism of science is a very tunnel vision view of existence. I think that the OP had more in mind when he posed the question of Duality of Truth, than provable equations.

Science is the study of life, the universe, and everything (I'm not being sarcastic), so what I meant was that all truth is a part of nature. Now, according to the rules of the debates forum, I can't talk about religion (which is what your post is screaming for), but suffice to say I do believe all (or most) truth can be scientifically discovered, given time, and that I believe that the universe has natural laws about morality.

 

And, what to you mean by convenience? And what's OP?

 

We can't be sure everything can be proven by science until we prove everything with science...

 

OP = Original Poster = the person who made the thread

[Dicecaster]

@Diecaster

If you confine the concept of Universal Truth to scientific facts that are PROVEN, then I would agree with you but most of life is not so cut and dried. Any quick look at the hard sciences of let's say Paleontology or Cosmology are constantly in flux with no ultimate truth as of yet in evidence, which is why I confined myself to allowing only mathematics as an example of pure truth that could be proven.

Pretty much anything can be proven with science; the reason things are in flux is either because we don't have enough information to make an accurate logical decision, or people are too stubborn to accept the logical decision (probably the latter). Just because we can't yet find that truth doesn't mean it's not there.

 

This is too good to pass up. Anything can be proven by science? What about the deep and persistent philosophical 'truths' that have preoccupied man since his earliest point of sentience? Is this all there is? What is the purpose of life, or does it have a purpose?

Could the questions of morality versus convenience be scientifically weighed? Seeing the universe through just the prism of science is a very tunnel vision view of existence. I think that the OP had more in mind when he posed the question of Duality of Truth, than provable equations.

Science is the study of life, the universe, and everything (I'm not being sarcastic), so what I meant was that all truth is a part of nature. Now, according to the rules of the debates forum, I can't talk about religion (which is what your post is screaming for), but suffice to say I do believe all (or most) truth can be scientifically discovered, given time, and that I believe that the universe has natural laws about morality.

 

And, what to you mean by convenience? And what's OP?

 

We can't be sure everything can be proven by science until we prove everything with science...

 

OP = Original Poster = the person who made the thread

Thanks for the OP clarification.

 

Unfortunately, you're not mistaken. We can't really be sure of anything because we don't have the proper minds/know-how/resources that we need to really prove it. Figures.

[Aurielius]

"And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

~Hamlet Act 1, scene 5

 

Philosophy is not religion, they share the only the same questions but provide different answers. My statements and posed questions were strictly philosophical in nature much akin to the ancient debate of the virtues of the Stoic's versus the Epicureans. Neither then nor now have those questions been able to be answered by sheer scientific analysis.

[Dicecaster]

"And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

~Hamlet Act 1, scene 5

 

Philosophy is not religion, they share the only the same questions but provide different answers. My statements and posed questions were strictly philosophical in nature much akin to the ancient debate of the virtues of the Stoic's versus the Epicureans. Neither then nor now have those questions been able to be answered by sheer scientific analysis.

Philosophy: "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." - dictionary.com

 

That doesn't take religion out of the picture. Religion, more than anything, gives the answers for the truths and principles of being, knowledge, and conduct. Either, there is no Deity out there, therefore man made the investigations himself, or there is a Deity, who gave us these answers. Either way, it's still philosophy.

 

If my sentences aren't making a lot of sense, please tell me and I'll come back later this afternoon/evening. I think I'm clearer then.

[Aurielius]

Philosophy: "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." - dictionary.com

 

That doesn't take religion out of the picture. Religion, more than anything, gives the answers for the truths and principles of being, knowledge, and conduct. Either, there is no Deity out there, therefore man made the investigations himself, or there is a Deity, who gave us these answers. Either way, it's still philosophy.

 

If my sentences aren't making a lot of sense, please tell me and I'll come back later this afternoon/evening. I think I'm clearer then.

 

For the sake of forum rules I have taken religion out of the equation. Philosophy as taught by the ancient Greeks had little to do with deities but rather how to navigate through life within the boundaries of accepted principles of action and morality. Socrates and Plato were not theologians but rather thinkers posing ethical questions of behavior and since their culture was the progenitor of all scientific thinking that followed it is perfectly appropriate to use them as examples of questions that have had no resolution in their time or ours.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Aurielius

[TheCalliton]

complete truth is impossible

one man's green is another's red

some scientists believe that people dont see color the same

we might even hear things differently too! for all i know, my heavy metal is your country!

take for instant Plato's cave analogy

http://i55.tinypic.com/28i574w.gif

now, imagine one of the prisoners is released into the sunlight and discovers truth, thus making him the "philosopher king"

when he returns, he will not be believed by others for knowing the "truth"

but for all the philosopher king knows, he was released into a bigger cave with a bigger fire and has himself only experienced another lie

there is another level to this, but it involves religion, so that point is not moot

Edited December 29, 2010 by TheCalliton

[Dicecaster]

Philosophy: "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." - dictionary.com

 

That doesn't take religion out of the picture. Religion, more than anything, gives the answers for the truths and principles of being, knowledge, and conduct. Either, there is no Deity out there, therefore man made the investigations himself, or there is a Deity, who gave us these answers. Either way, it's still philosophy.

 

If my sentences aren't making a lot of sense, please tell me and I'll come back later this afternoon/evening. I think I'm clearer then.

 

For the sake of forum rules I have taken religion out of the equation. Philosophy as taught by the ancient Greeks had little to do with deities but rather how to navigate through life within the boundaries of accepted principles of action and morality. Socrates and Plato were not theologians but rather thinkers posing ethical questions of behavior and since their culture was the progenitor of all scientific thinking that followed it is perfectly appropriate ti use them as examples of questions that have had no resolution in their time or ours.

I get my philosophy from my religion. Therefore, if I continue this argument with you, I would be limited by the forum rules. Therefore, allow me to say this: it has been a pleasure to debate with you, but I am forced to withdraw. Fairwell.