Are we alone? Intelligent aliens may be rare, new study suggests

[Helio]

So science is the arbiter, judge and jury of what is deemed to be true.

Not remotely. Science cannot address truth, but only the things that allow measurement. This is a major restriction for science, yet its success has come from this focused mindset.

Philosophy and religion have the reigns for truth. Science, at times, can only shine some light in the area around them to help them choose a path.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I would not agree that "philosophy and religion have the reigns for truth". There are too may past and current examples of both that have opposing views on specific issues, so at least one side, if not both, are therefore not "true", as in "correct".

Wars are actually fought between "believers" in opposing religions and philosophies. Even between groups that claim to worship the same deity.

I would argue that science is the closest we can get to determining what is true and what is false. And doing so in a manner that tends to make "converts" from opinions that have been demonstrated to not match reality.

 

[Catastrophe]

Not wishing to be pedantic, but are we talking REINS?

Reins are used to direct a horse when riding or driving. They are attached to a bridle's bit or noseband and are made of leather, nylon, or other materials. Reins are used to give subtle commands or cues—also known as rein aids—to ask for a turn, a slower speed, a halt, or to go backwards.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

whoknows,

That is not an invitation for any crackpot "reality", just a recognition that science is not all seeing, and often late to the party.

It is true that this is not an invitation for any crackpot "reality".

Science may be defined as follows (Google):

Science is a systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge about the universe in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions. It involves observing, identifying, describing, experimenting, and theorizing about natural phenomena. Science aims to explain and understand the natural world, offering reliable knowledge that is open to revision as new evidence emerges.

Cat

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I also wondered about Helio's choice of the word "reigns". But, whether he meant "guides" or "rules over" really doesn't matter to my disagreement, as I don't see either being correct in the relationship between the beliefs of philosophies or religions and any sort of establishable "truth".

 

[Helio]

I would argue that science is the closest we can get to determining what is true and what is false. And doing so in a manner that tends to make "converts" from opinions that have been demonstrated to not match reality.

Yes, but this is due to the ability inherent within science to present knowledge, meaning verifiable knowledge; objective knowledge. Sometimes scientific claims, of course, take time to test enough before logic demonstrates great reliability in the claim. The caveat is that scientific "knowledge" will always subject to falsification, hence testing and patience are needed.

Where science can't go, however, what is true, or truthful, becomes the purview of philosophy and religion. Beyond the objective realm (like a, today, large island) lies the subjective realm (the large sea), where, I suppose, the estuary is the overlap region.

Interestingly, the word "science" is used in 2000 year-old texts, but it is synonymous with "knowledge" only.

 

[Helio]

I also wondered about Helio's choice of the word "reigns". But, whether he meant "guides" or "rules over" really doesn't matter to my disagreement, as I don't see either being correct in the relationship between the beliefs of philosophies or religions and any sort of establishable "truth".

And for Cat....

Yes, I need to remember to "eschew obfuscation".

I was imagining a person, especially me, on a horse. My riding experience was at my grandfather's ranch. He refused to pay more than $50 for a horse (1960s), so every horse had their own degree of psychotic behavior, usually triggered as soon as the first foot got in the stirrup.

So, having the "reigns" doesn't guarantee a smooth ride. [So, yes, "guides" and "rules over" (most the time) are suitable.]

 

[Helio]

whoknows,

Science may be defined as follows (Google): "Science is a systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge about the universe in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions. It involves observing, identifying, describing, experimenting, and theorizing about natural phenomena. Science aims to explain and understand the natural world, offering reliable knowledge that is open to revision as new evidence emerges."

Yes, that's nicely stated, but adding that math is the language of science is also worth noting.

There are many arguments on behalf of this view of "modern science", which came first and best from Galileo. He seems to have been the first to argue the importance of math, or at least the one who made it popular to science in that respect, AFAIK. Bacon, Gilbert and others were instrumental as well.

 

[Helio]

The clarify, there is a big difference between knowledge and truth. Knowledge is fact-based, it doesn't require a moral interpretation. "Truth", as I see it, is meant to be an absolute claim that often can imply purpose or goodness (or badness).

When astrology dominated the astronomical studies, teleology was the common ideology. This was the idea that what is observed in nature was of a purposeful design. But, who were the ones deciding what was the purposeful truth? This problematic question became avoided by restricting science to the objective realm, which took time. Fortunately, by doing so, it was realized, IMO, that science could far more easily and quickly build upon itself, producing great benefits to the standard of living, for example.

 

[whoknows]

The clarify, there is a big difference between knowledge and truth. Knowledge is fact-based, it doesn't require a moral interpretation. "Truth", as I see it, is meant to be an absolute claim that often can imply purpose or goodness (or badness).

When astrology dominated the astronomical studies, teleology was the common ideology. This was the idea that what is observed in nature was of a purposeful design. But, who were the ones deciding what was the purposeful truth? This problematic question became avoided by restricting science to the objective realm, which took time. Fortunately, by doing so, it was realized, IMO, that science could far more easily and quickly build upon itself, producing great benefits to the standard of living, for example.

(For the record " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge" knowledge has a broader definition.)

All of this discussion justifying science as a seeker of truth, which I wholeheartedly agree with, seems to miss my point. Science needs an injection of 95% of stuff to balance the books, hopefully that will be understood, and lead to more understanding. Forget religion and philosophy, but, logically, why might the broader territory be expected to comfortably fall within the understanding of today's science. In the absence of other objective "proofs" I understand peoples adherence to science/maths. But maybe we are just seeing an elephant's toenail.

 

[Catastrophe]

whoknows, to some extent, I agree.

It is not possible to observe, or reconstruct, the Big Bang, for example

and science accepts this.

Physics lacks a widely accepted theory that can model the earliest conditions of the Big Bang.

Wiki

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Google "is observing limited to seeing?

No, observing is not limited to simply seeing. While seeing involves using your eyes to perceive something, observing goes beyond that by involving the mind to analyze, interpret, and make sense of what is being seen. It's a more active and intentional process of paying attention to details and drawing conclusions.

How does one know that something is real, without some input through one's senses, and without a more active and intentional process of paying attention to details and drawing conclusions concerning that input?

Cat

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I do agree that "theories" are not equivalent to "truth". At most, they are just the best approximation of the "truth" that we can develop at a particular point in time.

I think of "truth" more as "reality" than anything else.

It is the truth that, here on earth, humans cannot fly through the air by flapping their arms, but many birds and bats can. That is considered a "fact", based on observations and testing.

Getting into understanding why that is true is where we get into a lot of different levels of scientific theory. At the far end of that spectrum of experiments, conceptual models, and math involving physics, biology and evolution, we get to the questions such as why didn't humans develop the ability to fly by flapping their arms? After all, we do have a history of wishing to do so, and have concepts of human-like angels and fairies with wings that can do so. So, why can't we do what we wish to do? That is where philosophy tends to take over the discussion. But, we should not let philosophical opinions work back through our logic of theories, math, models, etc. to the point that they constrain what we observe as the reason for what we have established as facts.

Bringing that back to the actual subject of the article that is the basis for this thread, we currently do not have any known way for travelling to even the closest star to our Sun. We can imagine doing it, but we do understand that we do not have the actual capability to do it - base on our best understanding of "reality" today. But, we also understand that we don't know everything about everything, so therefore have some hope of learning something not yet known that will someday allow us to make that journey.

But, that is only "hope". There is no "real" basis for assuming that it will ever become possible. Extrapolating the increases in knowledge and the development of technology that has occurred in our past, with some bias in its direction to reflect our hopes for the future, does not assure us that our hopes will ever become facts or truth. We, and other intelligent beings that may exist elsewhere in our galaxy, may never be able to travel to other stars, or even send probes to each other. Or, maybe tomorrow, we will learn something that gives us the capability to do so - which could mean that others, elsewhere, might have already learned the same thing and done so. Those are both conceptually possibilities, but neither is "fact" or "truth" so far as we are able to determine now.

 

[spacedweller]

Where science can't go, however, what is true, or truthful, becomes the purview of philosophy and religion.

I disagree, "truth" is not a religious or philosophical thing.

The only thing religious or philosophical about truth is that they (religious groups mostly but not philosophers) claim to know the truth while denying anything else that does not align with their teachings, including scientific discoveries which contradicts their definition of truth.

Truth needs definition.

I say truth is objective reality, regardless of, whether such reality can be proven or not with current scientific progress.
Objective reality is what truly is whether discovered or not, whether we know it yet or not.

For instance we know about black holes and other phenomenon in the universe but do not know how exactly it all functions, we know some things but not all, thus we know there is objective truth.
The fact that we don't know everything and can't prove a lot of things does not make objective truth non-existent let alone something that applies only to religion.

Bottom line is that no one can claim to know the truth because no one knows how the universe works, all we know is that objective truth is there.
Truth from religious perspective is subjective truth, and so are scientific theories subjective truths because they can't be proven.

objective truth != subjective truth

edit:

There can be many subjective truths, however objective truth is by definition only one.
Theory of everything is an example that tries to get closer to objective truth.

 

[spacedweller]

I would not agree that "philosophy and religion have the reigns for truth". There are too may past and current examples of both that have opposing views on specific issues, so at least one side, if not both, are therefore not "true", as in "correct".

Wars are actually fought between "believers" in opposing religions and philosophies. Even between groups that claim to worship the same deity.

I would argue that science is the closest we can get to determining what is true and what is false. And doing so in a manner that tends to make "converts" from opinions that have been demonstrated to not match reality.

But even science can go wrong, specifically with so many theories that contradict each other, so science is not immune to errors.

The only positive thing about science in this regard is that it doesn't claim theories to be truth.

 

[Catastrophe]

Have you considered using "belief" instead of "truth" in these posts?

truth

Google Search

belief

Google Search

Cat

 

[spacedweller]

Have you considered using "belief" instead of "truth" in these posts?

Are you referring to my posts?

If yes, then belief in what? it looks you have misunderstood what I stated about objective truth.
Objective truth as I've put it isn't about gods or deities but about reality.

 

[Catastrophe]

Are you referring to my posts?

If yes, then belief in what? it looks you have misunderstood what I stated about objective truth.
Objective truth as I've put it isn't about gods or deities but about reality.

It was a general comment.

It seems to me, in general terms, that "truth" is what one has "belief" in.
This, of course, is subjective to the person doing the believing.

So, in my opinion, we have a situation analogous to reality.

What is your opinion of this abstract?

Whether truth is subjective or objective is a long-standing philosophical debate. Many argue that our perceived truth is subjective, meaning it is shaped by our individual experiences, emotions, and interpretations. This perspective suggests that the "truth" we believe is filtered through our senses and emotions, making it a unique and personal construction.

Cat

 

[spacedweller]

It seems to me, in general terms, that "truth" is what one has "belief" in.

This is exactly what motivated me to engage with previous posts, problem is that everybody associates truth with religions and beliefs, and associating truth with a god or similar which makes truth look like something explicit to faith, this is just wrong and abuse of the word.

So, in my opinion, we have a situation analogous to reality.

Yes, reality, or more precisely:
- How did reality (cosmos, material world, laws of physics etc.) come to be
- How does reality work
- Where does reality lead to.
etc.

Answers to these questions are "truth", we may not know the answers but the truth exists, I call it objective because only 1 answer to these great questions can be logically correct, everything else is subjective.

Saying otherwise is equal to saying that there are no answers which just makes no sense.

What is your opinion of this abstract?

I don't agree that truth can be either subjective or objective, that is mutually exclusive, instead I'm of opinion that there is single undeniable objective truth and many subjective truths.

Objective truth is what is true about our universe and our existence, with emphasis that we don't know it.

 

[Catastrophe]

Who says what is true?

The map is not the territory.

The words are not the reality.

Cat

 

[Unclear Engineer]

The difference I see between "truth" and "belief" is based on demonstrability.

Known "truth" is demonstrable in a repeatable manner.

"Beliefs" are not required to be demonstrable. That is not to say that "truths" cannot also be "believed" - I think they should be believed. But, I note that there are some "beliefs" that are demonstrably untrue. The "Flat Earth Society" is an example of that, for instance. (Yes, I know that some members think of it as a joke, but there are others that are serious believers.)

As a Venn diagram, I see 2 overlapping regions, one named "truths" and the other named "beliefs". The intersecting part that is both doesn't cause problems. The problems occur in the part where there is "belief" without "truth". And, I think of the part where there is truth without belief as the undiscovered truths we hope to discover by scientific methods.

The boundaries of Venn diagrams are drawn as sharp lines, but, in application, they really are not so sharp. There is a transition from conjecture through suspicion into expectation before proof, as one moves from the undiscovered part of the "truth" diagram into the "believed truth" part. On the other boundary, the transition between truths and beliefs that are not true goes through suspicion and denial.

 

[Catastrophe]

The difference I see between "truth" and "belief" is based on demonstrability.

Who demonstrates this "truth"? Who "knows" this truth?

This is a science based forum.

Are they using words to make this demonstration?

Cat

 

[spacedweller]

Who says what is true?

The map is not the territory.

The words are not the reality.

With current technological and human progress no one can answer the great questions.

The map is not the territory but we need definitions.

If you disagree with objective truth representing all the answers to existence then present an alternative instead of only denying.

 

[Catastrophe]

With current technological and human progress no one can answer the great questions.

The map is not the territory but we need definitions.

If you disagree with objective truth representing all the answers to existence then present an alternative instead of only denying.

If you disagree with objective truth representing all the answers to existence then present an alternative instead of only denying.

The alternative is:

The map is not the territory.

"Objective truth" does not represent "all the answers" to anything.

Nothing can represent "all the answers" to anything.

Denying an inaccurate or false statement is the alternnative to believing something you consider untrue.

Is this supposed to be scientific?

Did you not post this? Post 123.

With current technological and human progress no one can answer the great questions.

Is that being negative?

Cat

 

[spacedweller]

@Catastrophe
I think you're being unreasonable with your denial because you provide no alternative definition.

According to your logic theory of everything should be disbanded, which is a good example of what I'm trying to define here:

A theory of everything (TOE), final theory, ultimate theory, unified field theory, or master theory is a hypothetical singular, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all aspects of the universe.

Theory of everything - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

TOE is what objective truth in fact is. truth about everything.