# Science Means "Understanding," Not "Truth"

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-means-understanding-not-truth/6111>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Science\
**Created:** [May 8, 2019, 1:56am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-means-understanding-not-truth/6111 "2019-05-08T01:56:45Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 13\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [May 6, 2019, 7:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-means-understanding-not-truth/6111/1 "2019-05-06T19:28:55Z")

</div>

> [@Looking at issues raised by Tour](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/22):
>
> Well, I’m trying to make myself clear, but I don’t seem to be making too much progress. I do agree that outside of science there’s no problem. What I don’t understand is how it can be said that something is true in the context of science and false outside. That seems to be a contradiction to me.

That is the crux of it. Science is not a statement of truth. Why would you think this?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 6, 2019, 7:33pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-means-understanding-not-truth/6111/2 "2019-05-06T19:33:01Z")

</div>

> [@Looking at issues raised by Tour](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/24):
>
> That is the crux of it. Science is not a statement of truth. Why would you think this?

That seems like an odd statement. I was under the impression that one of the tenants of science is to pursue truth? So are you saying within science there’s a different definition of truth than what it is understood to be outside of science?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 12:16am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-means-understanding-not-truth/6111/3 "2019-05-08T00:16:55Z")

</div>

> [@Looking at issues raised by Tour](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/25):
>
> > That is the crux of it. Science is not a statement of truth. Why would you think this?
> 
> That seems like an odd statement. I was under the impression that one of the tenants of science is to pursue truth? So are you saying within science there’s a different definition of truth than what it is understood to be outside of science?

Science is not concerned with truth. It is concerned with understanding.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 1:56am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-means-understanding-not-truth/6111/4 "2019-05-08T01:56:45Z")

</div>

> [@Looking at issues raised by Tour](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/79):
>
> Science is not concerned with truth. It is concerned with understanding.

Hmm. I’m still perplexed. Doesn’t understanding entail truth? Understanding in the scientific sense would be to reveal the truth about physical reality, wouldn’t it?

By the way, how did we get on this topic? I’m kind of swimming in a sea of comments and am not sure what this is in connection with anymore?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 2:20am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-means-understanding-not-truth/6111/5 "2019-05-08T02:20:56Z")

</div>

Not all truth is understandable. Our understanding is not always correct. Science is only concerned with a rigorous understanding of the world, by a particular approach. It is foolhardy to think that human understanding at a given moment is “Truth”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 2:23am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-means-understanding-not-truth/6111/6 "2019-05-08T02:23:23Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Not all truth is understandable. Our understanding is not always correct.

OK. I can accept that. But what we’re ultimately aiming at is truth, isn’t it?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 2:35am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-means-understanding-not-truth/6111/7 "2019-05-08T02:35:13Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> But what we’re ultimately aiming at is truth, isn’t it?

Aiming is a good verb to use.

The idea underlying science is that our current approximation of the truth is always subject to revision.

Our job as scientists is to constantly try to disprove what we think is the current understanding of the truth.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 2:35am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-means-understanding-not-truth/6111/8 "2019-05-08T02:35:28Z")

</div>

Only some types of truth, fully acknowledging we only intend to speak provisionally about the understandable part of it. Science is about rigorously working out, with strict rules, our human understanding. If it was about truth, it would have been called “veritas.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 3:01am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-means-understanding-not-truth/6111/9 "2019-05-08T03:01:46Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Only some types of truth, fully acknowledging we only intend to speak provisionally about the understandable part of it. Science is about rigorously working out, with strict rules, our human understanding. If it was about truth, it would have been called “veritas.”

OK. However, would you agree that it’s important to note that science is not above truth in any way, and that it’s intention should be to aim as much as possible at uncovering the truth of reality in its domain of physical investigation?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 3:09am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-means-understanding-not-truth/6111/10 "2019-05-08T03:09:04Z")

</div>

It is only concerned with certain types of truth, even within its domain. It’s domain, by definition, does not include God’s action.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 3:29am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-means-understanding-not-truth/6111/11 "2019-05-08T03:29:22Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> It is only concerned with certain types of truth, even within its domain. It’s domain, by definition, does not include God’s action.

OK. Let me see if I’m tracking with you. So what you’re saying is that the domain of science is focused on specific truths of the physical world, i.e., how the physical processes work. And anything outside of that, including (assuming it exists), metaphysical activity either in creating of physical realities, or any other related metaphysical activity is outside of that focus.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 3:35am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-means-understanding-not-truth/6111/12 "2019-05-08T03:35:06Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> > It is only concerned with certain types of truth, even within its domain. It’s domain, by definition, does not include God’s action.
> 
> OK. Let me see if I’m tracking with you. So what you’re saying is that the domain of science is focused on specific truths of the physical world, i.e., how the physical processes work

Theologically speaking, it is focused on the “created” world, though this sometimes called the “natural” world.

> [@Jim](#):
>
> And anything outside of that, including (assuming it exists), metaphysical activity either in creating of physical realities, or any other related metaphysical activity.

That is outside the purview of science.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Robert\_Byers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f0a364/32.png) [@Robert\_Byers](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Robert_Byers)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2019, 4:21am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-means-understanding-not-truth/6111/13 "2019-05-08T04:21:30Z")

</div>

Science is about making conclusions upon superior investigation relative to ordinary investigation which is pretty good.  
If a conclusion is so settled then its settled. then revision is rejected.  
Science should indeed be skeptical about conclusions coming from man. However like in evolutionism they try to say its settled/fact just by saying its science.  
its all just proving conclusions and then who decides ot was proved. yet surely you can prove.