Lord Winston: "science is just one of many truths"

What are these "other truths"? What makes them "true"? If we re-define truth to mean "any dumb-ass idea that someone believes" then he is of course correct.

If we define truth as the facts about reality that consistent with themselves, he's in a little trouble.

Science is not in the business of "truth"; that's the job of mathematics.

Science is the business of measuring the truth of descriptions of reality.

"science is just one of many truths"

Yes, there are the truths that science has discovered and the truths that science has yet to discover.

Somehow I doubt that he's referring to Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem.

If we define truth as the facts about reality that consistent with themselves, he's in a little trouble.

That would imply that reality is incomplete ;-)

I've always had a soft spot for Robert Winston, his groundbreaking work in the realms of fertility treatment a fantastic, genteel and understandable presenting style of sometimes difficult scientific subject matter and general good eggness.
There's always been a simmering pot of religiosity beneath the surface that I tuned in to see examined as I have always wondered how he quantified it with his particular branch of medicine.
We didn't get that, but we did get some strange mumbo jumbo about many truths, the arrogance of atheism and how it is a belief system itself, this (obviously) showed a profound misunderstanding of the subject that in someone with his obvious mental kahoonas must surely be wilful.
However he managed to top this by making a spurious claim that there is evidence that "spirituality is a genetic trait", ie there is a spiritual gene...really?, I mean Bob, really...?.
The simple fact that Atheism/Freethought/Humanism/Agnosticism etc are as old as religion and certainly older than Abrahamaic religion should already give that the lie. Add to the fact that this countries churches are rapidly emptying of fawning bums on pews and this particular genetic trait seems particularly weak.
Daft old bugger.

The question is not whether or not religion is one of multiple truths, the better question is whether or not the religions method--whatever that is--for discovering truth works. No, the answer is simply no.

Of course there are other kinds of truth - aesthetic, moral, and so on. But science is the truth about scientific truth. About matters of empirical fact. The fact that there are other kinds of truth does not mean that there are true alternatives to science within the area of inquiry which science adresses.

And yes, this does put some bounds on other kinds of truth, insofar as they address questions that science is interested in. Sorry, all you philosphers out there, but last time I checked, everyone is still living in the real world.

Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled to them.
Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessep: You can't handle the truth!

In the same way that a Ferrari is one of many types of car...

I think what Winston really means is 'value', not 'truth'. As has been said clearly above, science has a method of distinguishing between relative levels of 'truth' - by simply testing them. Big clue that this works well: all of technology.

Religion does not have this because it very conveniently never presents any theories that can be tested.

However, religion and science both offer different sets of values by which one can view one's life. The practice of science (though not necessarily all scientists, of course, who are just human) places high value on honesty, humility, openness, willingness to admit mistakes, curiosity, hard work, intellectual and political freedom, questioning, change and flow, uncertainty, etc.

Religious places high value on dogma, suppression of questions, in-groups, sophistry, anthropocentrism, stasis, secrecy, forced hierarchical respect, fear, punishment, claims to certainty, etc.

It's not a coincidence that all of science's values are concerned with discovery and progress, and all of religion's are concerned with social control.

Science is not in the business of "truth"; that's the job of mathematics.

Science is the business of measuring the truth of descriptions of reality.

Well yeah, but Winston was talking to a general public audience who may not use such a precise definition of truth. In the sense he was using the word, science very definitely is in the business of truth. Religion and other superstitions are not in any way related to 'truth' unless you define truth as your own personal desires, beliefs and fantasies which is why Winston is such an idiot for suggesting otherwise.

Winston:

... actually science isn't the truth, science is a version of the truth ...

That doesn't seem anything as relativistic as the noisy cackle of complaints here suggests - I see nothing about other truths in that. Especially as this is the transcript of a live interview so some laxity must be allowed.

It's perfectly reasonable to see this comment as someone distinguishing between science as a search for "truth" on the one hand and "truth" itself on the other. Or as someone trying to avoid being pigeonholed into saying there is no truth outside science.

Complaining about the in-your-faceness of Dawkins's approach to religion is entirely another issue - it is reasonable to dislike Dawkins's style as a matter of personal preference. Some like it, some don't.

Science Bloggers are very free with their condemnation. A little more tolerance would be good, praise people for being 90% in agreement with you rather than scream at the 10% disagreement.

Science Bloggers are intolerant of irrationality and logical fallacies, which is absolutely fair game as far as I can see.

What's puzzling about Winston's implication that religion has 'other truths' is that those truths are such a completely different nature to the kind of truth that science pursues as to render that word - truth - almost useless in rational discourse.

Science tests whether something is true by holding it up to the universe, and other experimentalists, and saying "Don't take my word for it - see if it's wrong for yourself."

Religion never puts its head up above the parapet like this, and you have to ask yourself why it would never lay itself open to vulnerability like this. For all its claims to truth, religious certainties are completely indistinguishable from any number of other unsubstantiated theories that one can put together in a moment. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the currently and fashionably amusing illustration of this, but there have been many others throughout history.

If there's no way to distinguish religious 'truths' from something that is flase, or maybe just wishful thinking, then in what way can they practicably be said to be different?

P.S. If you want to read some fairly involved, but very revealing, discussion about this very topic, have a look at the Jerry Coyne article on religious-scientific reconciliation, and its responses from various members of the EDGE foundation:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3574,n,n

Sam Harris's acidly sarcastic response is especially worth reading in full. And Dennett and Pinker absolutely nail it.

As Pilate so famously asked, "But what is truth?" A corrolary question is just as important: What is proof? Materialists reject the claims of supernaturalists because they reject a priori the possibility of the supernatural. Any evidence supporting the existence of the supernatural must be denied or rejected. Of course, this is the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent".

In my own investigations as an anti-religious skeptic many years ago, I made a concious decision to be intellectually honest and permit the possibility of the existence of the supernatural, if the evidence pointed in that direction.

While no religious belief is provable by materialist standards, I noted that one item of faith *can* be conclusively *disproved* - the Christian claim to the Resurrection of Jesus. That's not a philosphical position or a divine revelation, but an historical event. Since Christian teaching is based on the Resurrection, the game is over if you can find the body.

Of course, Jesus' body has never been found. That doesn't prove anything, though; lots of bodies from 2,000 years ago have gone missing. But it still leaves open the fact that Christianity is potentially objectively disprovable. You can't say the same about other faith systems.

My next step was to look at the origins of the Resurrection stories. I looked for a reasonable secular explanation for both the origins and the details of the Christian resurrection stories. Being honest with myself, I also held open the possibility of a supernatural explanation, if the secular options did not pan out. (After all, if there does exist a God as described in the Bible, then he could indeed resurrect a dead man if He wanted to make a point.)

I investigated a half-dozen possible explanations for the origins of the Resurrection stories, from spontaneous recovery to conspiracy to arrogation of Mithraism. To make a long story short, they all failed to adequately explain the evidence, and required leaps of logic and suspension of disbelief equivalent to believing that a dead man could come back to life.

In words that Arthur Conan Doyle put in the mouth of Sherlock Holmes, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

I was left with the uncomfortable conclusion that an actual, historical Resurrection was the least improbable explanation for the evidence.

skydaddy: As Pilate so famously asked, "But what is truth?"

TRUE = (P OR (NOT P))

skydaddy: A corrolary question is just as important: What is proof?

A sequence of inferences allowed valid by specific premises, which themselves may be primary premises or previous inferences.

skydaddy: Materialists reject the claims of supernaturalists because they reject a priori the possibility of the supernatural.

In the sense that the word "supernatural" is usually used, it's rejected as an inference, not as primary premise.

skydaddy: Any evidence supporting the existence of the supernatural must be denied or rejected.

No, it gets given an alternative explanation, superior under the primary premises. Theoretically, a "supernatural" explanation might prove superior within the premises, but not yet thus far.

The primary premises of science are the validity of Formal Logic (EG: Boolean Algebra, plus the definition of the existential-to-universal quantifier relationship), that joint affirmation of the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms is self-consistent, and that Reality Relates (with formal complexity at most Recursively-Enumerable) to Evidence.

The last is the most controversial point; however, it appears the minimum necessary to resolve Hume's Problem of Induction and that problem's implicit prior, Empiricus' Problem of Deduction. With it (and the other premises, which enable mathematics), Minimum Message Length Induction may be proven (doi:10.1109/18.825807), which in turns allows formal construction of the methodology of Science.

Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled to them.
Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessep: You can't handle the truth!

The reply by abb3w seem to indicate that he (or she) holds as a primary premise that science is the only valid way of knowing. I have certainly heard that stated on many occasions.

But it is false.

Science provides one method of investigation, but there are others. For example, the work of detectives and historians is not science. They may use science from time to time, but investigating historical events requires a different toolbox. Historical events are not experiments that can be repeated.

Likewise, numinous or trancendental experiences are not subject to the rules of science. Certainly, one could measure vital signs or do brain scans, but that in no way defines or describes the subjective experience itself.

For example, the work of detectives and historians is not science. They may use science from time to time, but investigating historical events requires a different toolbox. Historical events are not experiments that can be repeated

I disagree. Science is a method, and while detective work, history, etc, are not always afforded the label of science (often with good reason), all endeavors with the intention of increasing our understanding of physical reality, using controlled, logically sound methods, can be brought under the banner of science â as an overarching label.

There are the natural, social, and behavioral, as well as the historical and forensic, sciences. That does not mean that we accept the conclusions from each area with the same degree of certainty, of course. Many people believe that the historical sciences fail to produce reliable conclusions and that they are methodologically flawed, but there is at least a commitment (not by all, unfortunately) to using an agreed upon framework for investigating historical events.

Saying that, "Historical events are not experiments that can be repeated", displays a rather outdated and limited view of what science actually is. To be fair, some of the people who work in the "hard" sciences would agree with that, but if we are concerned with forming reliable beliefs about the natural world, it would appear to be eminently reasonable that we take advantage of the best methods that humanity has ever invented.

Likewise, numinous or trancendental [sic] experiences are not subject to the rules of science. Certainly, one could measure vital signs or do brain scans, but that in no way defines or describes the subjective experience itself.

True, but only up to a point. If those "numinous or transcendental experiences" can be induced with either drugs or the stimulation of the temporal lobe â as they have been â then that should tell us quite a bit about what is actually occurring. And it does.

The subjective experience is slightly different, but it does provide clues as to how one should interpret those experiences. i.e. it probably has nothing to do with anything "numinous or transcendental", unless, of course, one argues that god is stimulating your temporal lobe. You could do that, I suppose.