CAN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD (TESTIMONIALISM) PRODUCE TRUTH? The scientific method

CAN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD (TESTIMONIALISM) PRODUCE TRUTH?

The scientific method CAN produce the truth. (The most parsimonious statement of correspondence by reduction to experientially decidable measurements that is possible.) The problem is, that we can very rarely KNOW it’s the truth in other than non-trivial terms for the simple reason that it is very hard to identify when information is missing. (For example, it is hard to imagine that there is much left to understand in the function of chemistry’s periodic table, only its application. But we could change the meaning of ‘Chemistry’ in the future. That would not mean that our existing statements were false, only that we had changed the context of the promise.

That’s why I use the term “Truthful” to deflate the traditional conflation ( under the form of idealism you favor speaking in ) of Truth (idealism) into:

1 – Truth (the most parsimonious statement possible in the context of the question),

2 – “Truthful” Truth (warranty of due diligence under testimonialism’s full set of dimensions),

3 – Truth (Warranty of due diligence in one’s Testimony to the best of one’s rational ability),

4 – Truth (honesty in the absence of due diligence).

Now, I probably should deflate the term ‘concept’ as well, into its constituent parts… but I think names, properties, categories, relations, recipes, actions, transformations, and narratives, are all well understood, whereas truth is more frequently used in ideal and conflated variations.

Curt