🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 21:26:33 UTC No. 16222873
If we define truth as correspondence between our ideas about the world and our observation of the world then how are metaphorical truths different from scientific truths?
For example: the story about Hansel and Gretel is false in the sense that the described events can not be verified by observation but there is a theme in this story that can be found in many other stories from different times and places: women are a tempting, trapping and devouring force. Since this theme is so universally recognizable we can agree that through mythology we have captured a truth about the world, no?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:07:06 UTC No. 16223803
>>16222873
Scientific truth is meant to be bankable and dependable, and based on making models that have precise predictive power. I have a model in my head that says I should ignore modern nutritional science, because they seem to be full of shit most of the time. That's not scientific, but it's still a model that has predictive power, but it's fuzzy.
Schroedingers cat as an allegory has a truth in it, but Hansel and gretl or fairy tales have more wishy washy truths about life experiences that can become self fulfilling prophecies.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 09:15:56 UTC No. 16224063
>>16223803
If the degree of accuracy and replicability are discerning factors between metaphorical truth and scientific truth then we can consider some scientific truths as more metaphorical than other scientific truths, no?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 09:59:04 UTC No. 16224125
>>16224063
>some scientific truths as more metaphorical than other scientific truths, no?
No. You could say this metaphorical truth has more of a scientific basis behind it than than another, but not the reverse. It doesn't make sense.
A scientific truth isn't meant to be more or less replicable. It either should be, shouldn't be, or there's something we missed that once we factor in, will tell us why x does y in circumstances a,b and c.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 10:06:49 UTC No. 16224133
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cor
has been deboonked
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:24:40 UTC No. 16224467
>>16224125
That's a strange position considering that:
1) the whole universe is always changing
2) we universalize knowledge from one particular place in the universe
3) there are seemingly endless (unknown) variables
4) systems are complex
5) probably much more objections that I fail to mention
I mean: is absolute replicability not an unreasonable standard as a consequence of panta rhei and the problem of induction? It's like asking for a definitive model of long term climate change and short term weather predictions. Instead we will forever be tweaking our models and never get to a final map of the territory.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:31:21 UTC No. 16224474
>>16224133
>deboonked
Just because we live in Plato's Cave does not mean that we can't find truth about how the shadows move on the wall. Objections against realism are indeed on the level of wikipedia.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:38:05 UTC No. 16224484
>>16224467
>the whole universe is always changing
It's literally not. Important things remain consistent
>we universalize knowledge from one particular place in the universe
No, unless you just mean from our point of view
>there are seemingly endless (unknown) variables
Yes, but there are variables we can know
>systems are complex
Making a model makes them easier to understand
>forever be tweaking our models and never get to a final map of the territory.
You don't need to. I don't need to know what gravity is to build a model of how it affects things.
>as a consequence of panta rhei and the problem of induction?
This shit is why talking about philosophy is fucking annoying. You already think you know what's right so let's just go with that.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:03:32 UTC No. 16224528
>>16224484
What thing remains consistent?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:16:55 UTC No. 16224557
>>16224528
Your ability to ask redundant questions over and over because your molecular configuration and the rules that govern it remain consistent enough for that to happen.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:05:05 UTC No. 16224710
>>16224557
prove to me that the speed of light is consistent, protip: you can't and it hasn't been proven it is dogma from the high priests of The Science
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:15:27 UTC No. 16224736
>>16224710
But it's literally not consistent depending on the medium it's passing through lol, so why would I?
You want to be right, so accept on faith and without the need for scientific proof that you aren't just being pedantic in order to flex something that doesn't exist.