Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Saturday, August 18, 2018

Neil Rickert- Science is not about truth

Yes, he said it:
I did not say that there is no truth. Rather, I said that truth is not the goal of science.

Linus Pauling, winner of 2 Nobel prizes wrote, 

"It is sometimes said that science has nothing to do with morality. This is wrong. Science is the search for truth, the effort to understand the world; it involves the rejection of bias, of dogma, of revelation, but not the rejection of morality."

And Albert Einstein
“But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.”

“A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth.” Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology.

The truth need not be an absolute truth. Truth in the sense that Drs. Pauling, Einstein and Nelson are speaking is the reality in which we find ourselves. We exist. Science is to help us understand that existence and how it came to be.

As I like to say- science is our search for the truth, i.e. the reality, to our existence via our never-ending quest for knowledge.


also the truth That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
Synonyms of reality

So perhaps Neil has some other definition of "truth"- other than what Pauling, Einstein and Nelson were talking about. I always thought science was about uncovering reality- separating the real from the fantasy and fake and finding/ figuring out the truth behind some phenomena, object or event. That is what investigations are all about- at least the thousands of investigations I have conducted or been a part of were about that. 


  • At 5:34 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I agree with you, I think science is all about finding out what is objectively true, independent of any kind of observer bias.

    Following on from your other post I don't think that forces naturalism. I think what science can establish is repeatable, predictive behaviour.

    I think that approach is difficult to reconcile with the idea of a deity who acts at whim and without clear triggers or causes. And I think that is the problem most scientists have with faith-based systems. How do you 'test' a god to find out what rules govern them?

  • At 6:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You can test to see if nature is up to the task of producing whatever it is we are investigating. You can test to see if telic processes are required. No one said to test God. No one tested the builders of Stonehenge. We have to assume they could do it because there it be and nature is not capable of doing it.

    No one can test, let alone repeat, blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase, for example. How do you test the capabilities of the blind watchmaker?

    But you do highlight the whole problem. You are jumping over what is being investigated right to trying to investigate the cause as if the inability to investigate the cause somehow affects the ability to investigate the object/ structure/ event in question. That doesn't sound like someone interested in instant science where until you know everything about the entire causal chain you can't possibly work backwards to get there.


Post a Comment

<< Home