This post comes after a few days of contemplation. Albeit, I have been busy with other things so that this post is shorter than the usual 1 page that I try to submit. The question is: Will Science become the epistemology (how you know something is true) for objective truth. Have we seen the beginning insights into an academic world that relies upon science for its truth claims (sounds like an old aspect of post modernism to me) OR will we see science become the center of epistemology for objective truth (as stated above). I think we have seen the attempt that scientist have made to push their discipline to be the objective test for what is true. However, I do not think we will ever see 'Science' become the foundation for objective truth.
My objection is that there are still too many people who hold a worldview that is consistent with the metaphysical. It is also my contention that there will probably always be a majority of the world population that will hold a metaphysical foundation for what they think is true. The problem is: most of these people (pre-disposed to the metaphysical) will not be in the university and will not be teaching your children. However, the people teaching your children will probably be the ones who have a false presupposition for Science as the true test for objective truth.
Think on that!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
In a way I agree with you. However, I would say that science largely has become the basis for objective truth (if anyone will admit that there is such a thing).
Now, I am not saying that everyone relies on science to provide this basis. Not by any means am I saying that. However, in America, Europe, and probably also Australia I would say that science is largely considered to provide this basis. Why? Because true science relies on facts. IF anything is to be considered truth THEN it must be able to go through the scientific method. It must be (1)observable (2)testable and (3)repeatable. Then and only then can something be considered truth.
I think that if you were to go on the street and ask people what or who provides a basis for objective truth the answers would be (depending on location) fairly evenly distributed between (1) there is no objective truth (2) science and (3) God (or a god).
The problem with science providing the basis for objective truth in the manner I mentioned above is the scientific method cannot run through the method itself which means, by definition that the scientific method is not truth itself; so it is consequently able to verify objective truth.
So I got off on a tangent, but I do believe that more and more people are buying into the notion that science can and does provide us with the only reliable truth, not realizing that setting science up in that way is ultimately a self-defeating position.
Post a Comment