And secondly, how is science not a source of truth? Sure, you've got your definition from the other thread that
Quote:
|
science is not a source of truth. It's a source of non-falsified theories.
|
Actually, wait, I think I see what you're getting at. Originally I was mostly happy to agree with the second part about non-falsified theories, but that those theories when proven correct (ie gravity and shit) lead to a more "truthful" understanding of the world.
But science is by it's very definition always in a state of flux, right? I mean, we constantly say that if something came along to show the theory of gravity to be wrong (I have no idea what could do it, but something), then we would accept it as not being the correct representation. So really, science can never be certain as being the "truth" of things, only the best current representation of what we know, whereas mathematics and logic etc don't change.
I think that's what you were getting at? I don't know, makes sense to me a little.
Though if someone wants to talk me out of it, I'll oblige.