Can Science be established if Truth is but a instrument of power?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Can Science be established if Truth is but a instrument of power? » Can Science be established if Truth is but a instrument of power?

Can Science be established if Truth is but a instrument of power?
If Truth is just a product of a system of power, why is Science so revered?

Page: 1 2

Can Science be established if Truth is but a instrument of power?

zaking17
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 21, 2009
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 6

Last Blog: The Birth of a Foodie

Posted 07/30/09 - 06:02 PM: Subject: Can Science be established if Truth is but a instrument of power?	#1
I would like to begin with the premises that (1) there exists no Universal Truth, at least not within the realm of human knowledge, and furthermore that (2) truth is either determined by those in power or is produced by the unconscious power relations of a society. The argument for or against these premises might make up another post. Given that truth is simply an instrument of power, can one establish science as an important method of inquiry? Of course, any truths produced by scientific inquiry are a product of a system of power. That system of power creates a particular scientific method, defines who may take part in science, controls which scientific discoveries are reputable, and governs the communication of scientific truths. Why, then, are scientific truths any more dependable than religious truths, mystical truths, or unqualified lies? I think this question has two parts: 1. Why have we come to trust science more than religion and mysticism as a source of truth? Is science simply more suited to a modern society, and if so how? These queries are the empirical, anthropological wing of the more general question. 2. Does science have an a priori usefulness that other methods of inquiry lack? Or perhaps the modern fascination with science IS nothing more than a consequence of an evolving societal structure. I would like to have a rational basis for my faith in science (connotations intended), but the second question has stumped me.

Gadfly II
In the ointment

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2009
Location: San Diego, CA

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 210

Posted 07/30/09 - 06:56 PM:	#2
First, I would need to know what truth as an instrument of power entails. Does this mean that authority (a group or the systemic function of society) decides what is true in all cases? only in some cases? does it interpret truth? Or does it dictate the actual truth, i.e. whether gravity is to function, can we walk through walls, do airplanes stay aloft? As opposed to what people will assent to in conversation independent of their physical activity. Second, what do you say a prioricity entails? necessity, ungivupability, by definition? something else? and if you have already granted one source of truth, why are worried about a secondary source?
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1021

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 07/31/09 - 06:38 AM:	#3
Your premise sounds like something like something Foucault might have dreamt up. It was apparently all about power with that fellow. And certainly, if one wants to indulge in imprecision, one can manage to associate power with truth, and other things, especially if one takes an essentially political or social perspective. But, I've never found generalizations of this kind useful, or interesting. In other words, I disagree with your premise. You seem to indicate that validity of this premise is for another thread. That's fine, but if you accept the premise, why start this thread in the first place?
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4152

Posted 07/31/09 - 07:10 AM:	#4
Science is one of the most useful tools ever discovered, who cares if it represents "truth" or not! If given the choice between something useful and something true I'll take useful any day whether or not it's usefullness is somehow a priori. As for people trusting science more than religion, that just depends where you live. In the US most people are religious and espouse beliefs that contradict scientific discoveries, and that is the country that spends more on science than any other. Science is also an evolving system, not a fait accompli, and there is no single scientific method shared by every branch of the sciences. As useful as it is, placing it on a pedestal would be like placing a series of specialized car tools on a pedestal. Certainly I love my tools, but that is not to be confused with being obsessed with them or worshipping them. Besides, there are plenty of other wonderful tools out there, some of which were used to the create the sciences.

zaking17
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 21, 2009
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 6

Last Blog: The Birth of a Foodie

Posted 07/31/09 - 07:59 AM:	#5
Gadfly II wrote: First, I would need to know what truth as an instrument of power entails. Does this mean that authority (a group or the systemic function of society) decides what is true in all cases? only in some cases? does it interpret truth? Or does it dictate the actual truth, i.e. whether gravity is to function, can we walk through walls, do airplanes stay aloft? As opposed to what people will assent to in conversation independent of their physical activity. For the purpose of this thread, I would limit the concept of truth to what any individual believes to be true. In that case, there are as many true explanations for something as there are individuals to describe it. You refer to an 'actual truth,' but I see no difference between your 'actual truth' and the Universal Truth that I have defined as nonexistent. The key point is that scientific truths seem to be more reasonable and repeatable than other truths. However, the truths created by a scientific method, however reasonable they may be, are still subjugated to the whims of those in power. Gadfly II wrote: Second, what do you say a prioricity entails? necessity, ungivupability, by definition? something else? and if you have already granted one source of truth, why are worried about a secondary source? When I say that science may have an 'a priori usefulness,' I mean that some characteristic of the scientific method makes it more likely to produce useful truths than mysticism, religion, philosophy, etc. The usefulness I refer to is usefulness in society. My intuition is that science could be the ultimate source of rational inquiry in our universe, and that it could have some property, perhaps a specificity to the nature of the universe, that makes it a more important source of truth than any other source of truth. For one possible reasoning, see the end of this post. ciceronianus wrote: Your premise sounds like something like something Foucault might have dreamt up. Well, you have me pegged. I have been reading Foucault. ciceronianus wrote: In other words, I disagree with your premise. You seem to indicate that validity of this premise is for another thread. That's fine, but if you accept the premise, why start this thread in the first place? If one takes the premises as a given, I think the question I posed has interesting implications. Let me divulge a line of reasoning: Religion and science provide different conclusions about the nature of the universe. However, the truths provided by science are more consistent and physically applicable than those provided by religion, at least in modern society. If I conduct an experiment, it can be repeated thousands of miles away by some stranger with similar results. In contrast, if I attempt to form an ethical position based on religion reflection, my conclusion will likely be very different from that of someone in India or Ethiopia. The power relationships are still at work here. I have the power to interpret my experimental data however I wish, and so does my partner across the world. The interesting fact is that a large percentage of the time our results will be congruent. I am looking for the property of the scientific method that makes it so repeatable. Since I already dove headlong into Nietzschean power-fetishism: maybe science is a system that is especially sensitive to relationships of power. A scientific statement: "This phenomenon occurs, so some process must have caused it. Given three possible causes (a) (b) and (c), cause (a) has the most power over the elements of the phenomenon, so cause (a) is the scientific reason for the phenomenon." I am not committed to this particular reasoning, but it is a possibility. I have also started a thread where I will fight for my Foucauldian premises: http://forums.philosophyforums.com...-knowledgepower-36174.html. Fire away.

Philo1965
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 92

Posted 07/31/09 - 09:51 AM:	#6
wuliheron wrote: Science is one of the most useful tools ever discovered, who cares if it represents "truth" or not! What does it mean to say that science is useful if not that we think it converges on the truth?

scarborough
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 13, 2007
Location: Cape Town

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 41

Posted 07/31/09 - 12:28 PM:	#7
Physics typically proceeds by isolating individual mechanisms in the artificial circumstances of controlled experiments. Reality taken as a whole does not know such isolation. Physics can be trusted within the realm of it own artificial circumstances, yet tends to isolate itself from the whole.

MagicalTree
Entity in existence

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2009
Location: Ohio

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 30

Posted 07/31/09 - 04:03 PM:	#8
I think using the word "Truth" with science is not compatible. Science merely distinguishes what processes actually exist, and which ones don't. But science is also limited to everything physical, which is where religion fills in the gaps of unexplained phenomena. Since science changes so frequently though, I think physical belief, in which most scientists always strive in bringing forth to the community, will slowly diminish. People have been so comfortable for most of their existence to always believe what they can see and change themselves. This is why society often leans toward the validity of science.
"Except our own thoughts, there is nothing absolutely in our power." -Rene Descartes

Gadfly II
In the ointment

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 14, 2009
Location: San Diego, CA

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 210

Posted 07/31/09 - 05:23 PM:	#9
zaking17 wrote: For the purpose of this thread, I would limit the concept of truth to what any individual believes to be true. In that case, there are as many true explanations for something as there are individuals to describe it. I thought you claimed truth was a function of the elite or the workings of an entire society. what is the relationship between individual truth and the sanctioned truth that you claim to be the truth? zaking17 wrote: You refer to an 'actual truth,' but I see no difference between your 'actual truth' and the Universal Truth that I have defined as nonexistent. Try this experiment. The next time you run out of gas define your tank as full and see how many miles per gallon you get. zaking17 wrote: The key point is that scientific truths seem to be more reasonable and repeatable than other truths. However, the truths created by a scientific method, however reasonable they may be, are still subjugated to the whims of those in power. When I say that science may have an 'a priori usefulness,' I mean that some characteristic of the scientific method makes it more likely to produce useful truths than mysticism, religion, philosophy, etc. The usefulness I refer to is usefulness in society. This is a performative contradiction. You state that truth is established by the power elite or society as a whole. Surely any institution in society is subordinate to the function of an entire society? the fact that you grant that a method is more reliable than another in yielding true results indicates that there is another source of truth independent of the one you claim. zaking17 wrote: My intuition is that science could be the ultimate source of rational inquiry in our universe, and that it could have some property, perhaps a specificity to the nature of the universe, that makes it a more important source of truth than any other source of truth. For one possible reasoning, see the end of this post. So truth is determined by power or society's functioning guided by an ultimate source of truth that is more reliable yet subsumed by the first? Reason has no place in your theory and since you already know the ultimate source of truth why in the world would you have any questions, let alone questions about the source of truth? Take my advice, for what it's worth. Throw away that pretentious new age, postmodern gobbeldygook and read a real philosophy book.
Dare to use your own reason. Kant

zaking17
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 21, 2009
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 6

Last Blog: The Birth of a Foodie

Posted 07/31/09 - 07:19 PM:	#10
Gadfly II wrote: Take my advice, for what it's worth. Throw away that pretentious new age, postmodern gobbeldygook and read a real philosophy book. What unpretentious philosophy book do you recommend? Edited by zaking17 on 07/31/09 - 07:32 PM

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.