'Scientific Truth is the Only Truth' Help appreciated

'The only truth is what science can prove.' Do you agree? Give reasons for you answer, showing that you have thought about more than one point of view. Refer to religious teachings in your answer.

I have to write a 1/2 to 1 page response to this and help would greatly be appreciated. It is a question from GCSE Religious Studies.

Thank you.

Reply 1

Ekpyrotic

Hey jumblebumble I'll help as much as I can, although be warned I don't know what the GCSE syllabus covers so some of the information might be a little advanced although I'm sure your teacher won't mind as long as you go away research what I say so you fully understand it and then write your essay. For clarity I'll partition my response into for and against.

Against:

Against is the easiest opinion to defend, although not - I believe - the right one. There are many claims that science can't answer:

1. What is 'good' and how do I become a 'good' person. Scientific reasoning might be able to tell you have Julie has been killed (no heartbeat, pupil dilation, etc) but science can't tell you why that is bad you have to get the 'why?' from other sources.

2. Science doesn't tell you why a particular painting is beautiful; or why a poem is beautiful. Once again it is these ominous 'why?' questions where science falters, science can tell you how it is but not why. (please research naturalism if you want a refute for this)

The obvious next question is where can I get this extra information from? There are many didn't responses you could give to this:

i. Religion, religion and religious experience (revelation) can help you come to understand the deeper meaning of human existence.

ii. Philosophy, philosophy offers a range of solutions than science can't encroach on. Moral philosophy a good example, moral philosophy can tell us what is the right thing to do.

For: (this contains the more advanced material)

The main argument stems from the 1930s philosophical group called the Vienna Circle, they posited a theory called Logical Positivism of which a part of was the Verification Principle. This states that if a statement can't be proved either true of false then it is meaningless. So,

"Ivor is bald", is meaningful because we can god up to Ivor and count the amount of hairs on his head.

"There are aliens", is also meaningful because we can (eventually) go to every planet and check under rocks to see if aliens are present.

"Murder is wrong", is meaningless because we can't check whether this is so.

All this means is that science can provide answers to all meaningful statements and this is all that matters. True science cannot answer meaningless statements, but why the hell would I want an answer to a meaningless statement because the answer would be meaningless too.

You can ask me further questions and I try to answer them as fully as possible.

Reply 2

Simplicity

Ekpyrotic

2. Science doesn't tell you why a particular painting is beautiful; or why a poem is beautiful. Once again it is these ominous 'why?' questions where science falters, science can tell you how it is but not why. (please research naturalism if you want a refute for this)

Yes it does. There is a branch of the social sciences called Psychology.

Ekpyrotic

All this means is that science can provide answers to all meaningful statements and this is all that matters. True science cannot answer meaningless statements, but why the hell would I want an answer to a meaningless statement because the answer would be meaningless too.

Not really. Murder is wrong is not a meaningless statement, its just complex.

Back on topic, I will say that Mathematical truth is the only truth. Science are just Mathematical models of the real life.

Reply 3

Ekpyrotic

Simplicity really?

This is not a debating area, this is where you can help people with academic problems. I don't stand by anything I said I was only helping. Are you a ******* **** or what? Prick.

Have you ever studied epistemology formally? If not you can't help so **** off.

Reply 4

Higgy90

Ekpyrotic

LOL somebody has anger issues. He was just commenting that what u said wasn't correct

Reply 5

Higgy90

Ekpyrotic

Have you ever studied epistemology formally? If not you can't help so **** off.

nan he probably does real subjects :wink:

Reply 6

Ekpyrotic

Higgy90

He was just commenting that what u said wasn't correct

Well he should aim the criticism directly at the school in which the opinion was developed not me. I did not say it. It is not my opinion.

Reply 7

Higgy90

Ekpyrotic

Well he should aim the criticism directly at the school in which the opinion was developed not me.

WTF? you gave in your post avreason why science can't prove why a picture looks nice... What's that got to do with a school? :rolleyes:

Reply 8

Ekpyrotic

Higgy90

WTF? you gave in your post avreason why science can't prove why a picture looks nice... What's that got to do with a school? :rolleyes:

The school of thought in question.

Reply 9

Simplicity

Ekpyrotic

Well he should aim the criticism directly at the school in which the opinion was developed not me.

I know that but your description of the school of thoughts is abit weird. In the first example you used a problem of Aesthetics then in the second example you used a problem about morality.

A better description of logical positivism would be to say that if the universe was created five minutes ago and that it was made to look like an old universe, it is meaningless and you should just assume that what you observe is the truth. Even if the universe was created five minutes ago.

Reply 10

Ekpyrotic

Simplicity

1. I was explaining the Verification Principle.

2. I included your line of thought, I told him to research naturalism if he wanted a response.

3. The second point you make is wrong.

4. Get the **** out of the philosophy academic help forum.