8-Bit Philosophy: Does SCIENCE = TRUTH? (Nietzsche)

A thought provocative presentation, based on Nietzsche’s critique of scientific positivism, on why science doesn’t always equate to truth. Depending on your position on the matter, and as with all subjects that can be debated in a philosophy class, the answer is open to debate and could lead to a blood bath. Discuss in the comments!

[8-Bit Philosphy]


4 Responses to 8-Bit Philosophy: Does SCIENCE = TRUTH? (Nietzsche)

  1. Science is not about finding truth, it is about finding what works. Scientists cannot prove a theory true, they can only fail to prove a theory false. That is why scientists talk about “supporting” and “accepting” a theory, rather than about “proving” it. More importantly, some theories are inaccessible to science; they can never be supported, but they also can never be rejected; and so it’s possible for the truth to be inaccessible to science. It’s amazing how many people don’t understand this.

  2. A philosopher who significantly advanced Nietszche’s project (Heidegger) had an insightful observation regarding the history of philosophy: in Western philosophy to be has always meant to be produced. In the ancient period this meant generally to be produced by nature (physis, the self bringing forth), in the medieval period things were the creations of god, and in modernity, things are created by man. This means that in modernity (now is late modernity, modernity is generally described as beginning with the birth of modern science with Galileo) things exist only and insofar as man establishes them through science. What does this mean? this means that, as we can hear in contemporary discourse, things that are “real” or “objective” are those things that can be statistically demonstrated through experimental science.
    Also, regarding the issue of description vs. causality, that is an issue from Kant onwards. Kant observed that causality is one of several concepts that we must use in order to make sense of experience (or more strictly, causality is one of those concepts that are conditions for the possibility of experience). That said, causality (or any of its brethren) need not have anything at all to do with the world whatsoever.
    If you are looking for the basis of why it is that for things to be real they need to be quantifiable, I direct you to Descartes, for whom mathematical reasoning was one of the very few things to survive the process of doubt and at the same time was something he considered a universal characteristic of the mind. Hence he attempted to build a science on the foundation of mathematics on the grounds that it could not deceive, was intelligible to everyone, and very importantly could be used as a tool.

  3. The premise put forth in this video seems self-evident to me. I don’t think many people spend much time considering epistemology, teleology etc., though.

    Not unlike Kierkegaard, and quite paradoxically, Nietzsche is perhaps most remarkable for his radical traditionalism.

Leave a Reply