I want to find out the fundamental truths in this world

[DaveC426913]

The Earth is more massive than the moon
The sun is more massive than the earth
Humans and gorillas share a common ancestor, and that common anscestor shared a common ancestor with all apes.

When we say something is a fact, we mean it is so generally agreed upon that we can move ahead with study, without doubting it. Until and unless something comes along to cast doubt upon it. But that's a sloppy definition.

It is factual to us Earthlings that the Earth is more massive than the Moon.
It is not fact the humans and gorillas share a common ancestor. Although it is almost universally agreed upon by the scientific community, it depends on theories of genetics that are still in flux. And we can't state facts about things 2 million years ago.

I'm quite happy to say that the statement "gorillias and humans share a common ancestor" is a FACT. It is as factual a statement that it is possible to state.

No. 'Apples tend to fall down on Earth' is a fact. It is demonstrable by any third party who cares to test it.
That we share a common ancestor is not factual. There is, however, a darned good body of evidence to back it up.

Its as true as "Australia is bigger in area than the United Kingdom".

It is factual in that we can define what we mean by bigger, and then measure it.

It is not dishonest to rule out the possibility that the United Kingdom is larger in area than Australia.

Are you sure?
How big is the tectonic plate upon which each sit?
Or what if "bigger" means more mass, or more surface area? Australia is mostly flat desert. GB has lots of mountains.

You will have to respond by defining your meaning for "bigger", probably mentioning the land area above sea level.

...you can say that there is a probability that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is wrong (and therefore there is no uncertainty - and go round in circles!).

Correct.

the theory of evolution (which IS a FACT)

Scientifically, it isn't. (mutation is, we can demonstrate that) That doesn't have to stop you from proceeding with it as an accurate model.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean here by "accurate."

Remember Zeno's Cave? Those in the cave saw what they saw. But it was not an accurate model of objective reality.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hi Russ:

This maybe a matter of definition, and I suppose it might be controversial, but from my late teen years many years ago I have always understood that mathematics is a field of science, although with somewhat different protocols. Math theorems are expected to be 100% proved to be mathematically true, although there are ocassionally from time to time erroneous proofs that survive for decades before someone, typically a graduate student, sees the flaw. (One example is the four color theorem as "proved" in te 19th century.)

Regards,
Buzz

All mathematics is based on axioms. For example, that 1+1=2.
We approach mathematics with the implicit statement "presuming the following axioms are true..."

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Here is another wrinkle re math and science.

The original question includes the phrase: "truths in this world". Perhaps the OP could clarify what "in this world" means.

I think it is a reasonable point of view that math theorems are not about what is in this world. while most (all?) the rest of science is about "this world", or at least it is about "this universe", and "this world" might be a metaphor for "this universe". A good example of this point of view is geometry. Geometry is about abstract objects, e.g., circles, and only approximate "circles" exist in "the world".

 

[russ_watters]

This maybe a matter of definition, and I suppose it might be controversial, but from my late teen years many years ago I have always understood that mathematics is a field of science, although with somewhat different protocols. Math theorems are expected to be 100% proved to be mathematically true, although there are ocassionally from time to time erroneous proofs that survive for decades before someone, typically a graduate student, sees the flaw.

No, that's not controversial: you are correct. Mathematical proofs are basically all-or nothing. They are either 100% true or 100% false. But they are self-contained and don't necessarily have anything to do with reality.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

maybe its better to stop twisiting this into philosophical twaddle and just stick to the word FACTS

Hi William:

The concept of what is means for a proposition to be a FACT varies with the discipline, as well as with the individual. With respect to the individual, the concept is rooted in the individual's personal philosophy, even if a particular individual is not at all philosophical. In any case that is something which is not discussed here.

The discipline of science in general also has different criteria for deciding what is a fact depending on the sub-discipline. e.g., physics, psychology, mathematics. However, it might be useful in the context of this thread to list some criteria for deciding what is a SCIENTIFIC FACT, or what is a PHYSICAL FACT.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[DaveC426913]

You might want to look up Empiricism and Empirical evidence.

"Empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience."
-wiki

 

[Evo]

The OP left the forum a month ago and the thread has been answered repeatedly.