A legit scientist understands that the true nature of knowledge is impermanence, that is, what is true this moment is no longer true the next. This is because all things in the physical [and intellectual] universe are in constant flux. This transience in scientific knowledge demands detachment from "scientific truth," instead, going with the flow of information so that there is only change, that is, that which exist outside of our ability to interpret. Intellectual interpretation of this transience is what we take to be the way it is, but alas, it's not even close [although it's the best we can do] because we are only capable of interpreting a specific moment [which is long gone by the time we get to it]. Fortunately there is no need to interpret very much as the great majority of essential information we gather happens before our interpretive powers kick-in. Once we start the intellectual process, the path towards Hell is brightly lit and standing room only.
False. Facts exist. Total nonsense. You don't ignore facts for a warm fuzzy feeling. I want what you've been smoking.
Science is certainly constantly improving. But, that constant improvement can not possibly be construed as a negative. Think what it would mean if we didn't have improvement in understanding our natural world. In what year would you have wanted science to stop?
Facts, like all things intellectual, constantly change. It's not about feelings, it's about understanding the nature of thinking.
It IS true that science is constantly improving. Like in all walks of life, answers get improved. Sometimes there is replacement. In my job I learned more and more. But, I wouldn't call what I knew at the outset "transient". Transient means lasting a short time.
All things knowable are transient. How can it be any other way? Can either of you name anything that is constant?
Our education and exploration is constantly improving our understanding. Calling that improvement "transience" is nonsense. For one thing, it is the very best we can do as humans. For another, there are plenty of principles as well as specifics that do have lasting value.
I think you missed my (somewhat sarcastic) point. If you're saying the transience of all things means we (via science) can't define the truth of anything, how can you define the truth of all things (including science itself) being transient? The reality is that while everything is indeed transient, things are also cyclic or ongoing and things that have happened in the past leave effects. We can use those elements to understand how things happened in the past and predict how they may happen in the future (and have done successfully in countless examples throughout history). It is never an 100% perfect system but the idea that it is totally useless is ridiculous.
Improvement is change. This is transience. Whether their is value is another matter altogether. Just the same, if you understand the nature of change, you can derive much a higher level of value. THIS is the point.
On your first point, this is the paradox of using the human intellect. I do believe that most agree that change is a constant. Instead of your cyclic theory, consider that Reality might be discrete moments, although separate, inter-related by the notion that all things in existence are a product of those things leading up to such. Just like time is a human attempt to understand the nature of existence, it is a poor enough one that many understand its flaws. If you discount the idea that time exists in a way that supports scientific theory, then the entire house of cards collapses. The best we can do is "understand" the limits of our understanding and simply go with the flow with a minimum of discrimination [like the rest of our cousins in the animal world]. You ever wonder why pretty much every other species seems to carry on their work in a much more reasonable manner than do we humans?
So, now you want to switch to suggesting some particular PART of science is transient!! Please defend that.
All things intellectual are transient, that is, all things knowable are subject to constant change. Are you in disagreement with that?
No, you are in disagreement. But that's ok. Can't agree on everything (nor understand others). The good news is that there's another bus in 15 minutes. Thanks for the discussion.
You got the answer. You just don't like it! You need to look up "transient" in the dictionary, maybe.
I don't see how what you're talking about would be a specific issue for science rather than for literally everything humans think and do. In practice, it is well recognised that our ability to use science to understand existence is limited by our ability to clearly and accurately observe the evidence. If anything, pure science is better at addressing that issue than many other ways in which people seek to understand things. Ultimately, any limitation is with us, not the methodology.
It's not specific to science. I just used science as an example. What I was suggesting is that all knowledge is fluid [and the importance of recognizing this].
That certainly isn't how any of your post are coming across though. It could well be just a communication issue but I'm not convinced. But if that were true, how could you claim to know it? It's like saying; "Every single statement I make is a lie!".
No. Facts don't change. Opinions and the analysis of facts change constantly. I don't believe science has an understanding of the nature of thinking. If you do then it didn't come from science.
It's not really my job to convince you...we're just having a friendly conversation. And your second comment points out the paradox of using the human intellect in an attempt to describe Reality. Either you get these things intuitively or you don't. It's just like many people's first impressions are the correct ones [because they are formed before their intellectual filter kicks-in and changes everything].
Facts are only true for one particular moment. They change because everything that takes place that made them "facts" has changed, as well.