In their search for “true beliefs” they would quickly discover that there is no such thing as “actually true” but that science deals in more and more viable models. So, they would abandon their search for “truth” and would go onward to the search for better and better fitting models. (See definitions of science … and, for a philosophical point of view, radical constructivism).
Our senses don’t perceive the “real” world. They build a highly refined and effective illusion of complete perception. (See for example the blind spot in the eye, the physiology of color perception, or our sense of hearing.
Likewise, our minds always use simplified models. No one would be able to catch a falling ball if he had to actually calculate the flight curve—yet, even children are able to do it.
That’s because if you keep your eyes fixed at the ball and have to lower your head in a constant way you are standing at the right spot to catch the ball. (If your rate of head-lowering is slower you have to move till it is.)
So, doing the actual calculations would be a waste of time, because there’s a simpler way to catch a ball.
Even if one uses always the best and newest models science provides, you will never, ever be really at the frontier because so many papers are published every day. And even if one could, scientists are able to err. And do so frequently.
(See for example selection bias. There are LOTS of papers about it.)
So, someone on a quest to find “truth” is a romantic twerp who will accomplish nothing, because he will expect to find something static and final. Science and understanding are processes.
The only fields of human endeavor where you find “truth” are mathematics and religion.
(Most things I mention in this article are findable in the wikipedia. If you don’t understand, look them up. Everyone should now about scientific models, “truth” and constructivsm. Oh, and the physiology of our senses.)
I’m confused. If there’s no such thing as the actually true, how are we to understand the claims you make in this comment? Are they not actually true? I take it you don’t think they’re false. Perhaps they’re what you call viable models? But of what? And if you do want to say that they’re viable models, you would be saying that its true that they’re viable models. But then is the claim that they’re viable models itself a viable model? Doesn’t this lead to a vicious regress?
In their search for “true beliefs” they would quickly discover that there is no such thing as “actually true” but that science deals in more and more viable models. So, they would abandon their search for “truth” and would go onward to the search for better and better fitting models. (See definitions of science … and, for a philosophical point of view, radical constructivism).
Our senses don’t perceive the “real” world. They build a highly refined and effective illusion of complete perception. (See for example the blind spot in the eye, the physiology of color perception, or our sense of hearing.
Likewise, our minds always use simplified models. No one would be able to catch a falling ball if he had to actually calculate the flight curve—yet, even children are able to do it. That’s because if you keep your eyes fixed at the ball and have to lower your head in a constant way you are standing at the right spot to catch the ball. (If your rate of head-lowering is slower you have to move till it is.)
So, doing the actual calculations would be a waste of time, because there’s a simpler way to catch a ball.
Even if one uses always the best and newest models science provides, you will never, ever be really at the frontier because so many papers are published every day. And even if one could, scientists are able to err. And do so frequently.
(See for example selection bias. There are LOTS of papers about it.)
So, someone on a quest to find “truth” is a romantic twerp who will accomplish nothing, because he will expect to find something static and final. Science and understanding are processes.
The only fields of human endeavor where you find “truth” are mathematics and religion.
(Most things I mention in this article are findable in the wikipedia. If you don’t understand, look them up. Everyone should now about scientific models, “truth” and constructivsm. Oh, and the physiology of our senses.)
See the simple truth.
I’m confused. If there’s no such thing as the actually true, how are we to understand the claims you make in this comment? Are they not actually true? I take it you don’t think they’re false. Perhaps they’re what you call viable models? But of what? And if you do want to say that they’re viable models, you would be saying that its true that they’re viable models. But then is the claim that they’re viable models itself a viable model? Doesn’t this lead to a vicious regress?
Sincerely, A romantic twerp