How do we know the tuth?

[Dan O.]

...

[roger]

!@#

[fls]

What were you thinking that you put this in SMMT instead of Religion and Philosophy?

Linda

[tsg]

Define "know" and "tuth".

ETA: and who's "we"?

[zombiebex]

I know the tuth.

I also know the Tuth Fairy.

[calebprime]

Define "know" and "truth".

ETA: and who's "we"?

I disagree with this. The Op clearly states that this is about the tuth.

[calebprime]

We know it when it bites us in the uth.

[tsg]

I disagree with this. The Op clearly states that this is about the tuth.

Fixed it. Thanks.

[Dan O.]

Sorry for the typo there folks. That should have been "How do we know the truth?" And I do believe that this belongs under Science where we are more interested in finding the correct answer as opposed to who is right and who is wrong.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that I see a lot of threads on this board debating various topics from global warming to conspiracy theories that seem to go on forever and ever. Though there is a lot of excellent information in these threads, the presentation is not in a format that makes it easy to separate the facts from fictions.

[kellyb]

Fact-checking helps a lot.

[SezMe]

There is seldom "truth" in the physical sciences. There is compelling evidence. We come to accept some areas - like evolution - to be factual but always acknowledging that it is ultimately a provisional acceptance.

Some areas of inquiry - like global warming - are extremely complex and the evidence hard to come by, involve long time spans and huge (in fact global) areas, and is subject to interpretation. So there is no such thing as simple right and wrong. Or to use your words, fact and fiction.

You have to read a lot, think a lot, listen to the arguments and make up your own mind. And you have to make sure that you are prepared to change your views as new evidence, interpretations and arguments become available.

[tsg]

Though there is a lot of excellent information in these threads, the presentation is not in a format that makes it easy to separate the facts from fictions.

You are encouraged, here as well as everywhere else, to follow-up with your own research and come to your own conclusions. Don't take anyone's word at face value. Including, and perhaps especially, ours.

[In My Spare Time]

Science can get us ever closer to "the truth" by creating models that make predictions. Predictions correct? Evidence for the model. Predictions fail in future experiments? Reevaluate the model or discard it.
As for The Tuth, do you remember that guy from when we were in college? Wow, he partied hard. Did any of you get his real name, or was he always The Tuth?

[The Great Hairy One]

Hi Dan O,

You probably need to define the terms of your question a little better, as well as mention what fields you're hoping to cover here.

When it comes to the biological sciences, and science in general, scientists don't generally talk about "the Truth" with a capital "T". They talk about the "preponderance of evidence" or say things like "the evidence overwhelmingly supports the current view/theory/hypothesis". However, at any stage new evidence may be discovered which reverses or overrides the currently accepted view.

Scientific evidence can be verified objectively, regardless of location, researcher involved or subjective worldview. This means that any scientists, in any lab around the world, regardless of their personal worldview, should be able to reproduce the results of an experiment produced elsewhere. If they can not, then the evidence is suspect - not discarded immediately, as someone may have made a mistake, but it's scrutinised at a "higher level" as such.

Also, you should be aware of the definition of "fact", and understand how a scientific fact is produced. Something like gravity or evolution are scientific fact - that is, they happen, they've been verified dozens of times, and any serious scientist can study and see the effects of the processes within gravity and evolution. How these processes work is another thing entirely, covered by specific Theories.

"Fact" and "Theory" do not necessarily equal "Truth" for all values of "Truth". This is why you need to clearly define your terms in the original question.

Cheers,
TGHO

[VanillaCone]

Sorry for the typo there folks. That should have been "How do we know the truth?"

What a letdown! I waited in breathless anticipation for this page to load, my heart pounding, hoping against hope that I would at last find the tuth I've been searching for.

But you're just talking about the lousy old truth.

[Dan O.]

I think we are all in agreement with regard to the scientific process. Where I disagree is the need for each person to do their own investigation of every controversial subject. If we spend all our time re-performing the process of others there won't be any time left to make new progress. There is a point at which we need to accept the work of others so we can apply our efforts to resolving disputed or unknown teritories.

To this end, it would be useful to have a format where the arguments are broken down point by point to be peer reviewed along with the counter arguments.

The current linear forums cannot branch fast enough to cover every point so some points and arguments simply get swept away and buried while other arguments keep resurfacing again and again. The new format needs to preserve the debate tree so it can be expanded and refined at any point without rehashing the entire argument.

[Taffer]

I think we are all in agreement with regard to the scientific process. Where I disagree is the need for each person to do their own investigation of every controversial subject. If we spend all our time re-performing the process of others there won't be any time left to make new progress. There is a point at which we need to accept the work of others so we can apply our efforts to resolving disputed or unknown teritories.

To this end, it would be useful to have a format where the arguments are broken down point by point to be peer reviewed along with the counter arguments.

The current linear forums cannot branch fast enough to cover every point so some points and arguments simply get swept away and buried while other arguments keep resurfacing again and again. The new format needs to preserve the debate tree so it can be expanded and refined at any point without rehashing the entire argument.

This is a matter for forum management, not SMMT.

[Dan O.]

This is a matter for forum management, not SMMT.

If we were discussing implementation of this concept on the JREFF servers I would agree. If however, we are only discussing how the scientific method could be enhanced by using a collaborative structures, it should stay here. I have no objection to the immediate implementation but I don't think we've gotten to that point yet.

[Taffer]

If we were discussing implementation of this concept on the JREFF servers I would agree. If however, we are only discussing how the scientific method could be enhanced by using a collaborative structures, it should stay here. I have no objection to the immediate implementation but I don't think we've gotten to that point yet.

So what, exactly, is your point? I'm confused by what you are suggesting.

[Cuddles]

If we were discussing implementation of this concept on the JREFF servers I would agree. If however, we are only discussing how the scientific method could be enhanced by using a collaborative structures, it should stay here. I have no objection to the immediate implementation but I don't think we've gotten to that point yet.

You mean like peer reviewed journals dedicated to specific topics? Yeah, I wonder why we don't have those...

[Dan O.]

You mean like peer reviewed journals dedicated to specific topics?

Kind of... but broken down to a much finer grain so that each point of each argument has it's own review. Wherever there is a disagreement, the causes of the disagreement can be further broken down and analyzed. If the cause is due to a difference in knowledge or experience we should be able to reconcile the difference by providing the missing knowledge. If the cause is due to a difference in values, we should be able to accept the difference or search for common goals.

[The Great Hairy One]

Kind of... but broken down to a much finer grain so that each point of each argument has it's own review. Wherever there is a disagreement, the causes of the disagreement can be further broken down and analyzed. If the cause is due to a difference in knowledge or experience we should be able to reconcile the difference by providing the missing knowledge. If the cause is due to a difference in values, we should be able to accept the difference or search for common goals.


This won't work, because some truths are subjective.

For example - I like liverwurst on toast. Not everyone does. But for me, it's "true" that liverwurst on toast is a very tasty snack. How do you analyse the disagreement here?

Whilst that's a very simplified example, there are still areas of scientific endeavour where the objective understanding of the process is not fully known, and as such, the "truth" of this process can be argued from either side and can not be shown to be wrong. For example, the underlying genetic cause of aging and cellular death is thought to have several possible root causes or may even be an amalgamation of causes. What's the "truth" here - we don't as yet know.

Then you get to philosophical discussions, where the "truth" really has a completely different meaning. You can't apply scientific analysis to some questions, and in many cases, the "truth" here really is personal.

I think your goals are admirable, but unrealistic. :)

Cheers,
TGHO

[Chupacabras]

Simply put, "truth" is what we have referenced to our own satisfaction.

A food or car brand may be as good as you value the word of your neighbor. The problem is that we all have very different standards of reference. As knowledge grows and technology advances, science tries to test truths and their references.

So truth is temporary and idiosyncratic.

[Schneibster]

We lern it.

[Dan O.]

This won't work, because some truths are subjective.

For example - I like liverwurst on toast. Not everyone does. But for me, it's "true" that liverwurst on toast is a very tasty snack. How do you analyse the disagreement here?

That's a lie. Where's your evidence!!


Whilst that's a very simplified example, there are still areas of scientific endeavour where the objective understanding of the process is not fully known, and as such, the "truth" of this process can be argued from either side and can not be shown to be wrong. For example, the underlying genetic cause of aging and cellular death is thought to have several possible root causes or may even be an amalgamation of causes. What's the "truth" here - we don't as yet know.

And how is the average person supposed to know that this is an unresolved question without spending their entire life researching the subject? I'm not saying that there will be one holy tomb of truths. But if the question of cellular death comes up and you were to spend time researching the subject, and someone else spends time debunking your work, this piece of the debate should be archived in a form that makes it available the next time the subject comes up. Or if you later find key evidence to strengthen your case, the point is still open and you don't have to go through the whole debate again just to update it.

Then you get to philosophical discussions, where the "truth" really has a completely different meaning. You can't apply scientific analysis to some questions, and in many cases, the "truth" here really is personal.

I think your goals are admirable, but unrealistic. :)

You are saying that cars are unrealistic because they don't fly.

I am not proposing a one solution fits all but simply a way to make forward progress or at least reduce the repetitions on some of the endless debates that seem to plague these forums.

[tsg]

This whole discussion sounds to me like you're searching for one central authoritative database of "truth". There isn't one. There isn't going to be one.

[Dan O.]

Yes, such a database would diminish the value or the truth sayers.

In the game of chess, every position is either a win, loss or draw. These values can be known for some positions near the end of the game. But to know the value for any position would require perfect knowledge which nobody has. Yet, this doesn't prevent us from creating opening books of lines that are playable.

[Schneibster]

<- Philosophy is over there.

[tsg]

Okay, I'm officially lost.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

I am not proposing a one solution fits all but simply a way to make forward progress or at least reduce the repetitions on some of the endless debates that seem to plague these forums.
Hey, I have an idea. Let's rename the 'Search' menu on this forum to 'Truth' instead!

Would that satisfy your request?

[Dan O.]

What you need is a working example. Lets take a hot topic such as Global Warming. Lay out on one page the major points for and against GW and the areas of research, theories and such. Each point in the main page would have it's own page where the point is expanded. For instance, the Hockey Stick would be expanded to show the the source for each data set. The data sets would each be expanded on their own page to show the research that went into the data, the modeling used, etc. These pages are not a representation of the truth but rather a representation of what we know. Arguments and evidence against any item would also be included with a bullet point on the page it is refuting and expanded details on a separate page.

[BrianSI]

Responsibility, Dan O. It's an unfortunate fact (ha) of life that you have to take it upon yourself to look at the data. And if the experts in a scientific field disagree, but both have compelling evidence, all the layperson can do (unless you're an Einstein) is keep up with the progress of the debate.

And then if politics enter into the mix in a big way (like with AGW)... well, then you have to separate those "facts" (which at base are values, not facts, which are subjectively prioritized) from the debate over what is actually happening in nature (as opposed to what to do about it).

You just have to decide which areas you are interested in. Which areas of science have the greatest implications for your life?

[BrianSI]

What you need is a working example. Lets take a hot topic such as Global Warming. Lay out on one page the major points for and against GW and the areas of research, theories and such. Each point in the main page would have it's own page where the point is expanded. For instance, the Hockey Stick would be expanded to show the the source for each data set. The data sets would each be expanded on their own page to show the research that went into the data, the modeling used, etc. These pages are not a representation of the truth but rather a representation of what we know. Arguments and evidence against any item would also be included with a bullet point on the page it is refuting and expanded details on a separate page.

Who are you suggesting do this work????? JREF? The gubmint?

Again, take responsibility for your own mind.

Why don't you do this exercise so you can see what all the talking points are.

Also, this is basically what an encyclopaedia does. It should present the controversy, not just whichever sides have the most evidence.

Good luck.

[Dan O.]

What you are saying is that everybody should do their own research. So why do you bother publishing your results? Your conclusion is based only on your values so anything you say must be intended to sway public opinion to your benefit. You're not going to get my support with that attitude.


You are correct in the assessment that what I am talking about is basically like an encyclopedia. Except that this system would have a finer grain and likely be more dynamic. Where the typical encyclopedia tries to condense the information we would try to expand it. And where a system like wikipedia prohibits original research we would actively encourage it.

As for who would do the work, this would be a community project. Even amateurs can participate by hunting down data sources or entering dissenting arguments that they heard in other forums. As the data is filled in on each page, a fuzzy truth value can be assigned to that page's point or argument such as: Proven, Beyond a reasonable doubt, By a preponderance of the evidence, More likely than not, Uncertain, Doubtful and Totally Debunked. When no other label work there is the catchall: "Needs more research". The assigned truth value of the point or argument would be propagated to the referencing pages to be used in assigning the truth values in those pages.

[Schneibster]

Hmmmm. Sounds a lot like TalkOrigins. Or RealClimate.

:D

[BrianSI]

What you are saying is that everybody should do their own research. So why do you bother publishing your results? Your conclusion is based only on your values so anything you say must be intended to sway public opinion to your benefit. You're not going to get my support with that attitude.



Your work is not the primary research in the situation you have expressed frustration for. Your work is to separate the diamonds from the dunghill (critical thinking). It's also likely that soemone else has made the effort before you, and you simply need to locate the work they did (e.g., learn to do advanced searching of the Internet).

I'm not saying every conclusion is based on values either. I'm saying that there is a difference between the truth of the situation (the primary research, i.e. hard evidence), and how I react to the situation (which is based on my values). If I want people to act in a certain way based on the information, I have to argue my case. But in the end, in this case, you are trying to get people to change their priorities.

In contrast, look at what Robert Lancaster does. He doesn't tell you how to feel about the facts he finds. He doesn't tell you to write letters to congressmen. Just by studying the facts he presents, I feel sick and want to help him take her down. I think most non-criminal types would have the same reaction. (Unless they have faith in her, of course.)

I think the organism you seek already exists. It's the Internet. But again, we all have to learn filtering skills. Maybe the Internet doesn't have the classification system you mentioned, but if you set up a blog and focused on the areas that interest you, you could use your classficiation system, and then link to others who do something similary ... well, you have your community right there. In fact, it's the skeptical community (e.g., Snopes, SkepDic, TalkOrigins, StopSylviaBrowne, ... and this forum). We just have to have more of us individuals willing and able to take a small part of the dunghill to sort through. Doing this is my biggest goal these days. I can only do a small part, what with a full-time job ... but something is better than nothing.

(I'm not well practiced at this filtering process myself either, btw ... but I do intend to be.)

Finally, my rule on what information to consider more closely has to do with whether facts are simply presented in an authoritative manner, or whether the presenter also says how the facts were determined to be facts. Don't just tell me what to think. Tell me also why I should trust the information. (Like the "show your work" markings I got in math classes).


I did not mean to offend. But my value system requires me to argue that people should take responsibility. If something isn't getting done, and I want it done, I don't expect others to do it. The best way to organize people in my opinion is to start doing a heck of a good job with something those people value. Again, my example is Robert Lancaster (plus ... that Randi guy).

I hope I have been clearer this time.

Regards,
Brian

[Dan O.]

I didn't know the forum knew about "rant" tags until after I posted the previous piece. A close examination of the quoted text will show what I had intended.


"We just have to have more of us individuals willing and able to take a small part of the dunghill to sort through." I think we may be close to the same track. What I'm getting at is once one of us has found a tiny morsel of relevant data, how to share what we've found without just adding more dung to the heap.

Robert Lancaster's site would be a good example of what I don't want. Even though I may agree with what he says, that is still one persons opinion and biases. Even if I were to create my own site, I would want the input of others (especially those with opposing viewpoints) to counteract individual biases.

Think of this as a community scoreboard for the facts. Each item is laid bare with only the supporting and contradicting evidence. If the pages are backed by a history of changes, undesired elements cannot simply be lost or buried but must be disputed with evidence. Over time, the undisputed facts will emerge on top and the areas that need more research to settle the issues will be clear.

[Dancing David]

The stupid have always been with us.

[Cuddles]

Think of this as a community scoreboard for the facts. Each item is laid bare with only the supporting and contradicting evidence. If the pages are backed by a history of changes, undesired elements cannot simply be lost or buried but must be disputed with evidence. Over time, the undisputed facts will emerge on top and the areas that need more research to settle the issues will be clear.

And as I said, we already have peer reviewed journals. Putting everything in the same journal, which is effectively all you are proposing, would not make any positive difference at all, all it would do is make it harder to find the specific things you are looking for.

[Dan O.]

Where do we have a peer review journal that any reader can add comments and additional data at any time? Such a journal would necessarily be on line. And being on line, it would be almost trivial to maintain cross references and indexes by title, keywords and full text.

The closest we have to what I am describing is SkepticWiki. But looking at the their recent edit history, it appears there is only one active editor. They also don't appear to handle contentious issues (not a single page on Global Warming). What's there all looks black and white and relatively shallow. It looks to me like it's trying to be just like wikipedia but with less content.

The wiki software is well suited to what I want. It has the links, history, keyword indexing, searching, easy editing by users and enough security to keep out the vandals. The hard part will be training contributors that this is not a wikipedia.

[Cuddles]

Where do we have a peer review journal that any reader can add comments and additional data at any time? Such a journal would necessarily be on line. And being on line, it would be almost trivial to maintain cross references and indexes by title, keywords and full text.

The closest we have to what I am describing is SkepticWiki. But looking at the their recent edit history, it appears there is only one active editor. They also don't appear to handle contentious issues (not a single page on Global Warming). What's there all looks black and white and relatively shallow. It looks to me like it's trying to be just like wikipedia but with less content.

The wiki software is well suited to what I want. It has the links, history, keyword indexing, searching, easy editing by users and enough security to keep out the vandals. The hard part will be training contributors that this is not a wikipedia.

Why would you want a wiki? Did you perhaps miss the part where I said "peer review"? The whole point is that most people don't have a clue what they are talking about. We don't want anyone to be able to add comments because most of them would be wrong. If you want a collection of actual knowledge and not just meaningless garbage then you need to have the people who actually know what they're talking about review things before publishing them. Hence, peer review.

The other problem is what is the point? Why make all this information available for anyone, when most people can't understand it. People who want to know more about resistive wall instabilities in particle accelerators know where to look for information, and no-one else cares. What use would it be to make an index available to the public?

And of course the final point is that information is being put online. Ever heard of Pubmed? Or Citeseer? More and more stuff is available online, but it is not a simple matter to put 200 years worth of scientific research on a computer. It isn't just a case of making a wiki page and hoping that only sensible people contribute and that such people actually do so. It takes a lot of time and money to get it done. And as I have said, the people to whom the knowledge is actually relevant know where to find it.

[Dan O.]

Is your peer review journal going to address every hair-ball conspiracy theory or alternate view and show how it's debunked? How come you can't stop the raging debates on these forums by pointing at the holy-grail journal article?

A wiki outline of the debate can be used to help focus on the differences of opinions and build the supporting and contradicting evidence on each side.