[smif]

> There are objective facts about the nature of reality

This is a pretty bold claim and you would have to do a bit of work to make it more convincing. Besides, it's not really how science works. Different theories wax and wane over time all the time. What we're really doing with science is coming up with ever better models that give us greater predictive power.

You could argue that at the macro scale we're asymptotically approaching some kind of objective truth with the whole endeavor of science, but you can't simply tunnel across that gap and make the leap to say that we know there is an objective truth.

The best that we can do is probably say something along the lines of "these are the best methods of getting closer to the truth that we have available - if anyone claims to have better methods, they are very likely wrong", but you still need to have the humility to accept that even the best models that we have to date are not infallible. They do not give us the objective truth, nor do they promise to, but they are the most effective tools that we have available to us at the current time. This is critically not the same as claiming that they give us the objective truth.

You could say that for all intents and purposes/everyday usage, "sure, these are objective facts about reality" - but I don't actually think that helps anyone and it serves to foment mistrust towards science and scientists. I think the best chance we have at preserving the status of science and scientists in our society starts by being honest about what it actually is giving us - which is quite a lot, but let's not oversell it for the sake of convience or whatever.

[ghostzilla]

As Heissenberg said, "What we are seeing is not nature, but nature exposed to our mode of questioning."

And the mode -- we invented it as it is because of a whim of history, because it is a game, and we like the game, and it's useful for us. But as far as facts go, Nietzsche summed it up the most concisely: "there are no facts, only interpretations."

[SleekEagle]

If by "objective truth" we mean the qualities of nature that exist irrespective of any individual's perception, then I think the continued reliance of our scientific knowledge in producing effective and consistent results are at least some measure of that.

> The best that we can do is probably say something along the lines of "these are the best methods of getting closer to the truth that we have available - if anyone claims to have better methods, they are very likely wrong", but you still need to have the humility to accept that even the best models that we have to date are not infallible.

This last sentence slightly conflates the scientific method with the models they produce. I am not claiming that the models are "true", I am claiming that the scientific method is the only reasonable means of gaining a reliable understanding of the objective nature of reality, assuming it exists; and that you cannot pick and choose what you believe in based on your intuition.

Quantum principles have been proven in experiments that have as tight a margin of error as measuring the width of the United States to one human hair, producing shockingly consistent and effective models that were absolutely critical to the development of modern technology. Yet some people somehow refuse to accept these models as an "accurate" reflection of reality, whereas they'll take, at face value, psych/sociological/economic studies that are frankly nothing short of pathetic in comparison.

In regards to science, I am saying that there is a hierarchy of belief. You can draw the line wherever you like in terms of what you think is "true", but you cannot reorder this hierarchy and believe these sorts of psych studies while at the same time questioning the physical models that power the technology that is used to publish them.

And this isn't speaking about math, which is a particularly special case given that it is not scientific but still produces shockingly effective results.

[smif]

I think I would agree with pretty much all of the above. There is a sort of hierarchy of belief, and quantum mechanics is probably close to the top of that. However, even so, it is still not infallible. It is possible for us to discover a regime where it breaks down and we need a new theory to supplant it.

This is basically what I'm arguing - no matter how accurately our theories line up with observation, we can never be sure that we have reached "the final theory" AKA the truth. I think this is where a lot of misunderstanding and mistrust for science originates. It will never deliver to us the truth - if it did, how would we ever know?

It is a method of getting closer and closer to what we believe is the truth. But there is still a gap there, however small it might be in the case of quantum mechanics. The scientific method by it's very construction is unable to bridge that gap.

Still, to date there does not exist a more effective method we know of as a species at getting closer to what we believe to be the truth. I think the above is a maybe subtle distinction there that is worth pointing out and educating people on. Just sort of making that distinction between the process and the results. That it is the best process we have, but even so, it cannot cross that gap and definitively say "this is the truth". That that is a gap we have to choose whether to cross ourselves with a leap of faith (or sometimes a very tiny hop of faith in the case of quantum mechanics). I think that might help people cement their faith in the process even if they dont necessarily place their faith in the results (in the case of questionable psych studies for example).

[tbrownaw]

You're conflating "objective reality exists" with "we fully know what objective reality is".

[smif]

If objective reality exists, which is still a pretty big if last time I checked, not only do we not know what it fully is, we don't even know what any part of it is. The best that we can do is get better and better at modeling it in ways that are useful to us (which is what science is doing for us).

[grotorea]

> This is a pretty bold claim and you would have to do a bit of work to make it more convincing. Besides, it's not really how science works. Different theories wax and wane over time all the time. What we're really doing with science is coming up with ever better models that give us greater predictive power.

Yes, but is mathematics like that? Is it even science?

[abnry]

> Besides, it's not really how science works.

You reject objective facts but respond with a claim about objectivity.

[smif]

I wouldn't reject objective facts, but I also wouldn't believe they exist any more than I would believe Santa Claus exists, unless someone can successfully argue for their existence. AFAIK this has yet to be done by philosophers (though there have been many attempts).

E: I should mention that it's not just a binary yes or no here, there is a 3rd option of "I don't know" and I would rabidly defend the "I don't know" camp until someone can convincingly argue one way or the other. All of this has nothing to do with the actual usefulness of science which is unquestionable in my opinion.

This is strictly talking about science "overreaching" into the philosophical realm if you will, where even from the start, methodologically it doesn't have the right tools to answer these questions. You don't prove scientific theories "true", you just accumulate more and more supporting evidence. It never hits a magical moment where the neon lights turn on and a sign says "Your theory is now true! Congratulations!". And even if it did, it would be fleeting anyway because there are no sacred cows here - your theory can just as easily get supplanted by a better theory in light of more evidence.

[alphanumeric0]

Is it a bold claim?

On that account, do you lean more towards flat earth theory?

[smif]

Yes it's a bold claim philosophically. How would you justify it?

No, flat earth "theory", if you can call it that, has close to zero supporting evidence and AFAIK has no actual predictive power. Stick with consensus science if you want actually useful theories, but that is very different from claiming they are giving you objective truth.

Let me ask you this, when a theory that was previously accepted as consensus science loses support in light of new evidence and gets supplanted by a new and better theory, does that mean that the objective truth changed?