• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 2
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
Truth, The Scientific Method, andEvolution
Sean D. Pitman M.D.© August 2003
 The Theory of Evolution is believed by many to be "true" - especially by most of today’s scientists. Many others, even among evolutionists, believe in the "truth" of Godor in an original designer. Still others believe in the “truth” of original creation where thebasic ideas of evolution are completely excluded. But how, exactly, do different peoplecome to their own personal understanding of what is true and was is not?What is truth? How do we
know 
what we know? Do we have an inherentknowledge of truth? If so, then we need not learn. If we do find ourselves learning,changing, and growing in our understanding of the world around us, does this not meanthat we are subject to that world and to what our senses and reason tell us about it? If we are subjects of our senses, then we cannot know beyond them and what informationthey give to us. In other words, we cannot know the external world directly (like we knowour own
internal 
thoughts and feelings). We cannot know if we are but in a dream or acomputer animation. However, if we wish to survive in this environment, whatever it maybe, we must be able to interpret what our senses are telling us about our environment.
 
There has to be some method that helps us decide if our interpretations are correct,incorrect, or need some sort of revision. The "scientific method" has proven to be one of the most helpful ways of sorting out truth from error.The scientific method is very simple - a basic "crap detector" if you will. We haveall used it since infancy. It is simply a description of the process of learning that involvesobservation, hypothesis, testing, and revising.
1
When we learn something new aboutour environment, we first observe or sense something through our senses. We thenpropose a hypothesis in our mind that explains this observation. A hypothesis makescertain assumptions or predictions about the future. If these predictions hold true, thehypothesis is strengthened in its usefulness as a predictive tool, but it can never beabsolutely confirmed since we remain subjective creatures (subject to our senses and toindirect interpretations of what they are telling us).The strength of the scientific method is found not so much in its ability to detecttruth, but in its ability to detect error. It has the ability to rule out those hypothesis andtheories that are definitely
wrong.
For instance, someone might observe a manscratching his nose and then rolling a pair of dice - which end up on double six’s. Onemight then hypothesize that this man’s nose scratching caused him to roll double six’s.The prediction could then be made that this will always hold true in the future. If the manroles double six's again after scratching his nose, the hypothesis is strengthened, butnot absolutely confirmed. This could have been a coincidence after all. However, if thisprediction holds one hundred times in a row, one might become more confident, butnever absolutely certain. All one can do is point to the past predictive usefulness of thishypothesis. But, if this man happens to roll a two and a five after scratching his nose,
 
the initial hypothesis has clearly failed and either needs to be revised or even replacedby a different hypothesis.The scientific method is an extremely powerful learning tool in that it detects error and so narrows the possibilities where truth may be found. If truth exists in any field of thought or learning, the scientific method can be used as a guide to help one approachthis truth. Certainly then, the scientific method is a very versatile method. It can be usedfor anything as mundane as hog calling to physics and mathematics.Anyone can be a scientist and any area of thought can be approached in ascientific manner. However, this does not mean that all people are scientific in their thinking - even in such "hard" sciences as physics or mathematics. Humans have atendency to believe a lot of things based on feelings - or a desire or love for a particular idea. The problem here is that the truth about external reality or truth is not dependentupon personal desire. The moon will not just disappear even if I really really want themoon to disappear - or the sky to be green instead of blue. Truth will be true regardlessof one's feelings concerning it.So, if one honestly desires to know truth, a conscientious effort must be made tolimit one's emotions during the search. All possibilities must be considered with nonebeing ruled out simply on the basis of personal likes or dislikes. All of our ideas must beopen to challenge and question. This becomes easier when we realize that humanunderstanding can never achieve full perfection. When we come to this point, we areforced to conclude that our individual search for truth is never ending. We can approachtruth, but we will never fully realize truth. Even established theories must be subject to
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
clarkanger

Is truth not self opinion? 1 reference for an entire article. Self opinion is truth, but not for a valued educator, right?

reply03 / 02 / 2009
Theo Clark

"However, I am not alone in thinking that the theory of evolution is severely limited in what it can explain - to the point of being completely untenable given what we now know about genetics, geology, the fossil record, and various dating mechanisms today" And... who thinks this? Why do they think this? Moreover, given what we now know about genetics, geology, the fossil record, and various dating mechanisms, evolution by natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift is the only tenable explanation. Do you have a better suggestion? Given what you said about testability - I assume you wouldn't suggest ID as an alternative. This is tantamount to raising the intellectual white flag by invoking untestable magic.

reply05 / 23 / 2008
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...