For Me, Truth Does Not Lie In Science

I am a philosopher by education, so I love playing with definitions.  Some times, it is not just playing. In fact, the foundations of thought often rely on how we define and use words.  In addition to that, the words that we attach to things in the world provide a foundation for what we consider to be real and reality. A word that I think we need to pay more attention to these days is truth. Here is my take:

There is a simple definition of truth that can apply anywhere: that something is true when it is consistent with experience.  A statement about the world can be considered true when it is consistent with experience. But that is often not what we are talking about now when we refer to truth, especially not with science. Things that we try to establish as true or false these days are often far outside of experience, especially our personal experience. Science itself is beyond personal experience and deals with data derived from measurements and experiments often using specialized and purposefully designed equipment. This is important-- science is important--, but it is far from experience, especially the everyday experience of most people.  That is part of why I think the connection between truth and science is strained and tenuous.  I think truth is (or has to be) connected to experience and to everyday life AND to the meaning of both.  Science can be connected to meaning and is for some people, but for many, it is too narrow and sterile to give meaning or to draw values from.  I tend to fall into that camp even though I can be amazed at the theories and discoveries of science and their applications in technology. 

That is just beginning of what I mean when I say: I don't think that science finds truth. Science finds very useful and practical knowledge and information. It allows us to predict and manipulate the world around us which is very useful, but is that truth?  The data, facts and theories of science are practical and useful. There is great value and importance in that. However, I don't think that is truth. 

For me, truth has much more to do with meaning and value. Truth is not just facts or the theories derived from them.  Facts need weight assigned to them.  They need a structure given to them, a narrative (or meta-narrative) so to speak.  That comes from values and meaning. Information and theories from science should inform the creation of meaning and value when appropriate, but value and meaning (and therefore truth) go beyond them and often come before them.

Mixed in with all of this is the leap from science as a descriptive pursuit to values and meaning which are prescriptive.  Saying that science can be the foundation for meaning or values violates Hume's Law (jumping from the 'is' to the 'ought' without sufficient reason) in a way that I can respect when someone else does it, but will not do myself because it is essentially a logical leap of faith, and one that I don't trust or believe in.  I place truth on the side of the 'ought' along with meaning and values, not on the side of 'is' which is where science and its facts and theories lie.  There is a influence that passes from one side to the other, and in both directions.   But I think that the 'ought' side is more foundational and originary.  As a result, I don't associate science with truth in any deep or meaningful way.  I understand why others do, but I see it as a leap of faith and not as a logically sound choice that I should be compelled to make.  My leap is to place truth closer to meaning and value, while still respecting science and its facts and theories. 

Incomprehensible by Design

Dedicated to Fr. Paneloux SJ

I find myself more and more convinced that in order for God to give us free will, he also had to create a world that we are unable to fully understand. To put it in existentialist terms: to give us free will, God also had to give us the absurd.

If the world was completely comprehensible, then we would be able to know what things are and how they work, completely. This would mean that the world would dictate to us what we should do, or that simply knowing enough would make it clear to us what we should do or even will do. In any of these cases, free will would no longer exist in any meaningful form. Choices would be obvious and we would always be convinced to make the right choice.

The complexity and irrationality of the world makes free will not only possible and unavoidable, but it makes it a burden. We (if not as an individual, at least as a society) create the paradigm or system that we use to make sense of the world. They are not given to us by God (though they maybe more or less inspired by the Divine), and they are not inherent in the world. They are human constructs that are limited and imperfect. There have been others than the one we find ourselves in, and there are others outside of the one we are in at any time. There will be others still, as the current ones adapt and adjust to a changing world.

Even when we come to know things there is always the problem of putting value on those things and deciding how to use them. Sometimes this is done after we come to know them. Sometimes values and use were part of discovering things and coming to understand them. Often it is a mix of both before and after. (And they-- both the things, and the values and uses-- can always change as we go.)

If any of those things-- the things themselves, the values or the uses-- were definitively and clearly determined, they would limit our free will by giving us information that we had to take seriously and act according to. If they all were, they would completely override free will.

It then seems obvious that the world can't be logical or comprehensible to us if we are to keep our free will and be able to exercise it. We can misunderstand, make mistakes, make bad choices and disagree with each other because things are not clear cut and obvious, and they never will be because by design they aren't.