Is There Anything Absolutely True Beyond Scientific and Mathematical Verification?
The quest for absolute truth has been a cornerstone of human inquiry, but the strictures of scientific and mathematical methods challenge the notion of an untestable truth. This article explores the limitations and practicalities of verifying claims through scientific and mathematical means, and the implications this has on our understanding of truth and reality.
Challenges of Absolute Truth
The answer to the question, 'Can something be considered absolutely true without being able to test it scientifically or mathematically?' is 'no.' The very concept of 'consideration' implies the application of logic, and any claim of absolute truth must withstand logical scrutiny. For instance, the simple statement that you are reading this sentence is true, but only within the context of logic; it does not require scientific or mathematical testing. You contemplating your own thinking is proof of your awareness and existence, but this awareness too is not directly testable in a scientific or mathematical sense.
Science and Empirical Evidence
Science, as observational truth, does not claim to provide absolute truth; it offers the most compelling empirical evidence that can be gathered. Scientific claims are not absolute and are subject to reversal based on new observations. For example, the claim that a a requires the principle of non-contradiction, which is a foundational belief in logic. It is these foundational beliefs, or axioms, that support scientific theories and are not themselves testable within the system of science.
Empirical vs. Logical Truth
While empirical evidence is crucial, it is not the only form of truth. Logically, if the axioms assumed as true without proof are also true, then conclusions drawn from those axioms are also true. However, this does not equate to absolute truth as these axioms themselves are not testable in the strictest sense. This means that the practical utility of proof is limited, given that absolute proof is rarely achievable.
Intelligence and Sensible Action
Even without the concept of truth, living beings can still discern true things and act upon them. Dogs, for instance, avoid dangerous situations without needing to understand the concept of truth. This suggests that intelligence lies in the ability to act sensibly based on knowledge, rather than in the understanding of abstract or absolute truths.
The Role of Research and Testing
Most research and testing are aimed at fitting within the existing worldview. For example, theories like universal gravitation, the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, and the expansion of the universe are all tested against existing frameworks. However, the nature of theories is such that there will always be a point at which further testing is deemed unnecessary due to high confidence levels. It is important to note that science does not operate under dogma; if falsifying evidence is found, the theory must change. This is a core principle in the scientific method.
Facts vs. Theories
While a fact is a data point, useful in specific contexts, theories are broader explanations of natural phenomena. The scientific method demands that we remain open to the possibility that theories can be shown to be incorrect. This is a significant departure from religious beliefs, which often start with a determined truth and seek evidence to support it, often disregarding evidence that contradicts it. This process of falsification and change is what distinguishes science from religion.
Conclusion
While the path to absolute truth through scientific and mathematical means is fraught with limitations, it remains a powerful tool for understanding and explaining the world. Embracing the uncertainty and the process of testing and refining our theories is at the heart of the scientific enterprise. As we continue to refine our understanding, the scientific method provides a basis for a reasoned and empirical truth that evolves with further investigation.