That being the case, one wonders what the hoopla is all about over the teaching of evolution from the evolutionists. If science isn't about truth, then there's no basis for saying that anybody else's theory, or even opinion, is not true. How can someone proclaim something as fact when they don't even know what truth is?
I've explained this to you at least a dozen times, but you simply are unable to learn.
For the lurkers, what this incorrect and dishonest post is in reference to a definition I have posted on my FR home page, and which I have posted periodically. This deals with the use of the word "truth" in science. It is from a CalTech website, so reflects more than just my opinion.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.While I have explained this a number of times, some folks refuse to listen, and repeatedly and dishonestly try to twist the meaning of the definition.
Lurkers, judge for yourselves.
Contrasting the real world’s definition of *truth*...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth
Main Entry: truth
2 a (1): the state of being the case : fact (2): the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality
b: a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true [truths of thermodynamics]
c: the body of true statements and propositions
3 a: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality c: fidelity to an original or to a standard
***********************************************************
So, if science isn’t about truth, then what’s the alternative? That it’s about non-truth? There’s another word for that.
If prominent scientists think that truth is best avoided in science, then why should we have any confidence in what they say? And why should they be upset when we disagree with them?
Does not the possibility exist that they are wrong?
Are they so sure that there will never be any evidence to contradict their pet theories that they can engage in mockery, ridicule, and derision against those who show any skepticism about their pronouncements?
What if it turns out that the skeptics are right? Then all the mockery, ridicule, and derision was for what? And what does it show about the character of those who engage in it?
And if that’s the case, what’s the point of forcing through legislation something that’s open to being wrong?
If high school science had a better philosophy of science section, and a deeper discussion of the scientific method, maybe much of the debate could be avoided.
I personally got such a simple overview of the scientific method (and no philosophy of science to speak of) that it may as well have been the classic "proof" that all odd numbers are prime. (1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, and 7 is prime, so all odd numbers are prime).
This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths.
Personally, I think this definition is a little reactionary. The scientific endeavor relies on creating intellectual models and testing them against reality. The model is not truth, but it helps our understanding of truth, similar to how a map is not a city, nor is it complete, but it aids our navigation of the city. The more evidence is found that proves the model (that the model was not created to describe in the first place), the more we trust the model.
Religion and philosophy have no models. They only have principles that must be accepted as the basis for further reasoning. These principles affect the interpretation of scientific models and may encourage or discourage the creation of new models. Take the mediocrity principle and its discouragement of the exploration of the possible uniqueness of the earth, humanity, or the universe ("At one time, people said, 'Why even bother to sequence the whole genome? Why not just sequence the [protein-coding part]?'" --Anindya Dutta, geneticist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville). Or take religious exception of embryonic stem cell research due to a philosophical wedding to human exceptionalism.
The basic definition of evolution (change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time) is never questioned by even the most stalwart young-earth creationist. It is a pretty basic model that can be and has been demonstrated many times. However, common understanding of evolution includes philosophical baggage from the mediocrity principle including "man is no better than animals or bacteria" (universal common descent), "life was an accident, created without purpose" (abiogenesis), and "our universe is not unique" (multiverse theory). All of these have much less evidence than evolution, and all are far more controversial.
Making "evolution" a philosophical equivalent to mediocrity theory does a disservice to science, but atheists commonly use such tactics as a dishonest rhetorical technique to sway the public to an anti-religious viewpoint. Most, if not all, debates on the topic of "evolution" do not even touch on evolution as defined by Douglas J. Futuyma and others, but on the popular broadened definition which amounts to mediocrity theory in scientific dress.
One key thumbprint to look for in these debates is what is arguing against what. Model will not argue against principle, and principle will not argue against model, but principle will argue against principle and model against model. So if someone holds up a model and says it argues against a principle, then interpretation is supplying a principle behind the scenes that must be put forth. Similarly, if a principle claims to be against a model, then there is a model which needs to be tested.