In many ways, the human effort of science is the ultimate pursuit of truth. By asking the natural world and the Universe about ourselves, we try to understand what the Universe is like, what are the rules that govern it and how things became what they are today. Science is the full set of knowledge that we gain by observing, measuring, and conducting experiments to test the universe, but it is also the process by which we conduct this research.
Maybe it’s easy to see how we gain knowledge from this endeavor, but how do scientists come to the idea of scientific truth? And when we get there, how closely related to our concept of “absolute truth” are these scientific truths? What are the grounds on which we scientifically determine something to be true or not true?
When we speak scientifically, the concept of “truth” is quite different from how we colloquially use it in our daily speech and experience. Here’s how to understand the scientific uses of the word truth, including what it means and what it does not mean to our reality.
One of the great mysteries of the 16th century was how the planets moved in apparent backward fashion. This can be explained by the geocentric Ptolemy (L) model or the Copernicus heliocentric (R) model. However, to bring the details to arbitrary precision would require theoretical advances in our understanding of the rules underlying the phenomena observed, leading to the development of Kepler’s laws and, ultimately, of Newton’s theory of universal gravitation.
Consider the following statement: “The earth is round.” If you are not a scientist (and also a flat-earthen), you might think that this statement is irrefutable. You may think this is scientifically true. In fact, stating that the Earth is round is an important scientific conclusion and scientific fact, at least if we compare a round Earth with a flat Earth.
But there is always an additional nuance and a caveat. If you were to measure the diameter of the Earth across our equator, we would get this value: 7,926 miles (12,756 km). If you measure the diameter from the North Pole to the South Pole, you get a slightly different value: 7,900 miles (12,712 km). The Earth is not a perfect sphere, but rather a spherical shape that bulges at the equator and is compressed at the poles.
Planet Earth, viewed in its entirety (as many as can be seen at once) from the GOES-13 satellite. The planet may appear perfectly spherical in this image, but its equatorial diameter is slightly larger than its polar diameter: the Earth is approximated more closely by a flattened spheroid than by a perfectly circular sphere.
For a scientist, this illustrates very well the objections associated with a term such as scientific truth. Sure, it’s more true that the Earth is a ball than that the Earth is a disk or a circle. But it is not absolutely true that the Earth is a sphere, because it is more correct to call it a flattened spheroid than a sphere. And even if so, calling it a flattened spheroid isn’t absolutely true either.
Travel the universe with the astrophysicist Ethan Siegel. Subscribers will receive the newsletter every Saturday. Everyone on board!
There are surface features on Earth that show significant deviations from a smooth shape, such as a ball or a flattened spheroid. There are mountain ranges, rivers, valleys, plateaus, deep oceans, ditches, ridges, volcanoes, and more. There are places where the land extends more than 29,000 feet (almost 9,000 meters) above sea level, and places where you will not touch the earth’s surface until you are 36,000 feet (11,000 meters) below the surface of the ocean.
From a depth of over 7,000 meters in the Mariana Trench, the “Jiaolong” submarine depicts live plants and animals at the bottom of the ocean in the Western Pacific Ocean. Mariana’s snail is the deepest living fish in the world, reaching a depth of 8145 meters. The Marian Trench contains the deepest part of the world’s oceans.
This example highlights several important ways of scientific thinking that differ from the way we commonly think.
This makes a huge difference to how we usually think of facts and fiction, truth and falsehood, and even right and wrong.
According to legend, the first experiment to show that all objects fall at the same rate, regardless of mass, was carried out by Galileo Galilei at the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Any two objects dropped in a gravitational field, with no (or neglect) air resistance, will accelerate to the ground at the same rate. This was later codified in Newton’s research of matter, which replaced the earlier concepts of steady downward acceleration, which only concerned the Earth’s surface.
For example, if you drop a ball on Earth, you can ask a quantitative, scientific question about how it will behave. Like everything on the Earth’s surface, it will accelerate downward at 9.8 m / s² (32 ft / s²). And that’s a great answer because it’s approximately true.
However, in science you can start looking deeper and see where this approximation is no longer true. If you run this experiment at sea level, at different latitudes, you will find that this answer is really different: from 9.79 m / s² at the equator to 9.83 m / s² at the poles. If you go to higher altitudes, you will notice that the acceleration starts to slow down slowly. And if you leave the Earth’s gravitational pull, you’ll find that this principle is not universal at all, but is rather replaced by a more general principle: the law of universal gravity.
Apollo mission trajectories, made possible by the Moon’s close proximity to us. Newton’s law of universal gravitation, despite the fact that it has been superseded by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, is still so good that it is approximately true on most solar system scales that it contains all the physics needed to travel from Earth to the moon and land on its surface and return.
When it comes to scientific laws, this is even more generally true. Newton’s law of universal gravitation can explain all the successes in modeling the acceleration of the Earth as a constant, but it can do much more. It can describe the orbital motion of the solar system’s moons, planets, asteroids and comets, as well as how much you weigh on any of the planets. It describes how the stars move inside galaxies and even allowed us to predict how to send a rocket to land people on the moon, with extremely accurate trajectories.
But even Newton’s law has its limits. When you are approaching the speed of light or approaching a very large mass, or you want to know what is happening on a cosmic scale (as is the case with an expanding universe), Newton will not help you. To do this, you have to replace Newton and go to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.
The illustration of gravitational lensing shows how background galaxies – “or any path of light” – are distorted by the presence of mass that interferes with them, but also shows how space itself is warped and distorted by the presence of the foreground mass alone. Before Einstein presented his theory of General Relativity, he understood that this folding must occur, although many remained skeptical until (and even after) the 1919 solar eclipse that confirmed his predictions. There is a significant difference between Einstein’s and Newton’s predictions about the amount of bend that should occur due to the fact that both space and time are affected by mass in General Relativity.
For particle trajectories traveling close to the speed of light or for very accurate forecasts for Mercury’s orbit (the closest and fastest planet in the solar system) or for explaining the gravitational curvature of starlight by the Sun (during an eclipse) or by a large set of masses (such as with gravitational lensing) above), Einstein’s theory shows this exactly where Newton fails. In fact, for every observational or experimental test we have performed in General Relativity, from gravitational waves to dragging frames in the cosmos itself, it has gone with flying colors.
Does this mean that Einstein’s theory of general relativity can be considered a scientific truth?
When you apply it to these specific scenarios, absolutely. But there are other scenarios to which we can apply this, all of which are not yet sufficiently tested, in which we fully expect that it will not give accurate quantitative predictions.
Even two merging black holes, one of the most powerful sources of a gravitational signal in the universe, leave no observable signature that could study quantum gravity. For this we will have to create experiments that study the regime of the strong field of relativity, i.e. near the singularity, or use clever laboratory configurations.
There are many questions we can ask about reality that require us to understand what is happening where gravity is important or where the curvature of space-time is extremely strong: exactly where you want Einstein’s theory. But when the distance scales you think about are also very small, you expect quantum effects to be important as well, and general relativity can’t take this into account. These include questions such as:
Einstein’s theory will not only get the wrong answers, but it won’t have meaningful answers to offer. We know that in these regimes we need a more advanced theory, such as the correct quantum theory of gravity, to tell us what will happen under these circumstances.
Bits of information encoded on the surface of a black hole may be proportional to the surface area of the event horizon. When a black hole breaks down, it goes into a state of thermal radiation. Whether this information survives and is encoded in radiation or not, and if so how, is not a question to which our current theories can provide answers.
Yes, the masses near the Earth’s surface accelerate downwards at 9.8 m / s², but if we ask the right questions or conduct the right observations or experiments, we can find out where and how this description of reality is no longer a good approximation of the truth. Newton’s laws can explain this phenomenon and many more, but we can find observations and experiments that show us where Newton is also insufficient.
Even the replacement of Newton’s laws with Einstein’s general relativity leads to the same story: Einstein’s theory can successfully explain anything Newton can, plus additional phenomena. Some of these phenomena were already known when Einstein was constructing his theory; others have yet to be tested. But we can be sure that even Einstein’s greatest achievement will one day be replaced. When that happens, we fully expect it to happen in exactly the same way.
Quantum gravity tries to link Einstein’s theory of general relativity with quantum mechanics. Quantum corrections to classical gravity are visualized as loop diagrams like the one shown here in white. It is not yet certain whether space (or time) itself is discrete or continuous, as is the question of whether gravity is quantized at all, or whether the particles we know today are fundamental or not. But if we hope for a fundamental theory of everything, it must encompass quantized fields, which general relativity does not do on its own.
Science is not about finding the absolute truth about the universe. No matter how much we would like to know what the fundamental nature of reality is, from the smallest subatomic scales to the largest, cosmic and beyond, science cannot provide it. All our scientific truths are temporary, and we must recognize that they are merely models or approximations of reality.
Even the most successful scientific theories imaginable are by their very nature limited in scope. But we can theorize as to what we like and when the new theory meets the following three criteria:
will replace the present as our best approximation of scientific truth.
Our entire cosmic history is theoretically well understood, but only qualitatively. It is only through observational confirmation and disclosure of the various stages in the past of our universe that must have taken place, such as when the first stars and galaxies were formed and how the universe expanded over time, that we can truly understand our cosmos. Relic signatures imprinted in our universe from the state of inflation before the hot Big Bang give us a unique way to test our cosmic history, but even this structure has fundamental limitations.
All our currently held scientific truths, from the Standard Particle Model to the Big Bang, dark matter and dark energy, cosmic inflation and beyond, are only temporary. They describe the universe extremely accurately, succeeding in regimes where all previous schemes have failed. However, they all have limits on how far we can push their implications before we get to a point where their predictions no longer make sense or will no longer describe reality. These are not absolute truths, but approximate, temporary ones.
No experiment can ever prove that a scientific theory is true; we can only show that its validity extends or does not extend to whatever regime in which we test it. The failure of the theory is, in fact, the ultimate scientific success: an opportunity to find an even better scientific truth to bring reality closer. Whenever we find that our present understanding is insufficient to explain everything there is, yes, it’s a mistake: wrong in the best possible way.
How do you know if the information you are receiving is the truth science?
If at all possible, experiment with yourself to find out the truth … 3. On the same subject : National Science Foundation Awards $20 Million To Universities For Advanced Data Science. Find an authority that is an expert on your topic.
- Peer-reviewed scientific journals. …
- Official websites of government agencies. …
- University websites. …
- Official websites of respected professional organizations.
What is the most reliable source of information? Primary sources are often considered the most reliable when it comes to providing evidence for your argument as they give direct evidence of what you are looking for.
How can you tell if the source of information is credible?
Check the source and author credentials and bindings. Assess the sources the author cites. Read also : Spacecraft sampling and underground asteroid excavation (101955) Bennu. Make sure the source is up to date. Check out the recommendations and reviews the source has received.
What do you look for in a source to trust its science related information?
Using only one research study How big was the study? Did they compare the new therapy with an existing therapy or a placebo (a treatment that has no known effects)? Who did the research? Has it been published in a reputable scientific journal? See the article : CHIPS and Science Act boosts US technology investment.
Is scientific truth absolute?
There are no absolute truths in science; only approximate truths exist. Whether a sentence, theory, or framework is true or not depends on quantitative factors and how accurately you research or measure the results.
What is scientific truth? Definition of Scientific Truth Scientific truths are based on explicit observations of physical reality and can be checked by observation. Some religious truths are believed to be true no matter what.
What is considered absolute truth?
In general, what is always important is the absolute truth, regardless of parameters or context. The Absolute in this concept means one or more of: the quality of truth which cannot be surpassed; complete truth; unchanging and enduring truth.
Is scientific knowledge absolute knowledge?
Scientific knowledge is never absolute. Rather, it represents the consensus of a critical and vigilant community of scholars. This is the idea of consensus, often confused with the Absolute Truth, and it is especially evident when we enter the realm of human action and thus moral judgment.
What is science truth?
The goal of science is to build a true and accurate knowledge of how the world works. The word “truth” is sometimes used to refer to spiritual truths or other topics that science cannot investigate. In order to be interested in scientific truth, one does not have to reject other sources of meaning.
Is science fact or truth? And while science is a powerful force in understanding the way the world works, it is not true. To make a distinction, there are facts. There are things we observe in the world around us. We observe light moving from distant galaxies.
Is there a truth in science?
It is believed that the theory is never absolutely true, but it is provisional and approximate. Science creates a web or web of understanding into which known facts fit. This consistency is crucial for truth recognition. Science creates the basis for action because of the power of foresight.
What is truth in the natural sciences?
Truth is owned by a related group of consistent and accepted beliefs. A belief is true when it is consistent with the group of beliefs we already accept as true. If a belief is valid, it is true. Scientific theories generally gain recognition when they combine with a group of already accepted judgments.
What is science truth and knowledge?
Science is the search for truth and knowledge. Originality and autonomy are its driving force. Science only becomes science by treating data, facts and intellectual property fairly. 1) The basic principles of scientific work must remain unchanged.
Are truth and facts the same in science?
The fact is indisputable, based on empirical research and measurable measures. The facts are beyond theories. They are proven by calculation and experience, or they are something that definitely happened in the past. The truth is quite different; it can contain facts, but it can also include faith.
