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?
Religion based definitions of TRVTH are irrelevant. Science accumulates knowledge, not truth. Knowledge enhances our ability to make decisions, but it does not reveal the future in detail.
Knowledge about how weather works does not tell us if it will rain on this day next month, but it nonetheless improves our decision making.
What you and other theists want is certainty. What science provides is probabilities. If you think probabilities are unimportant, check out the bank accounts of casinos.
Can’t you see it now....???
A doctor tells you drug A is THE best medication for hypertension, then another MD tells you drug B is the best, and both docs went to the same school...call each other quacks, tell you how each other used junk science to reach their conclusions...
what do you do....alternate pills every other day or what? If truth is irrelevant in science I suppose the doctor (and pharmaceutical company) who presents the most “proof” “wins” the debate and that’s the end of that?
But I guess when all you have to start with are big astronomically and virtual impossible probabilities of purposeless big bangs, single cells swimming in pre-mordial soup, again without purpose, grew legs...and ga-jillions of years later...well here we are!