Do We Have To Learn To Think Scientifically In Order To Find The Truth Essay Example

is spherical in shape. This brings to question whether our current scientific knowledge may also be disproved in the future. To test present-day theories, there are three methods for verification. The first of these is the correspondence test, which assesses an idea against actual events to establish a relationship between the two.

By simply looking out a window, one can determine if it is raining outside and confirm that the claim passes the correspondence test. However, as humans, we lack individual experience in everything, leaving us unable to verify claims such as the presence of water on Mars, since we have not personally been there.

By comparing fact claims to other proven true fact claims, the coherence test is used to assess them. This method can be exemplified by testing the statement "My little brother Jay is fourteen-years old". I confirm that he was born in 1986, which has been corroborated by his Birth Certificate.

As I was born in 1984, my younger brother Jay's name is officially recorded on his Birth Certificate. Therefore, based on this information, it can be logically deduced that he is currently fourteen years old. Although this approach is commonly used to verify current and past events, it is not infallible.

The falsity of any fact in a chain renders the entire idea false. According to the pragmatic test, an idea that proves effective is considered true. This test is utilized to assess the efficacy of our ideas. For instance, when your lamp fails to work.

Initially, the light switch is tested to confirm if it functions, but unfortunately it does not. Thereafter, you ascertain that the lamp is plugged in, which it certainly

is. Moving forward, a venture is made to the circuit breaker downstairs and it is discovered that the switch was not turned on. This gradually leads to the hypothesis that your circuit switch was tripped. This declaration of fact happens to be effective and legitimate. Nevertheless, there exists a debate asserting that truth is subjective.

The personal views and experiences of individuals shape their subjective proof, which is unique to each individual. However, science would not be able to offer evidence if truth were entirely subjective. It is not always valid to believe that one's beliefs are true solely because they hold them. For instance, if someone claimed to be typing this essay on a computer while swimming in the Atlantic Ocean, it would evidently be false.

While personal belief may be sufficient evidence in some cases, it is not necessarily reliable. Emotions can be misleading and the rest of the statement lacks logical or scientific backing. However, there are certain matters such as ethical, moral, and religious concerns that cannot be validated solely by science.

Science and mathematics have verified the validity of the Laws of Physics. Gravity, which is always present on Earth with a consistent rate of 9.8 m/s, has also been proven on other planets but not in outer space. By employing scientific and mathematical logic, these facts have been confirmed.

While some facts are universally accepted, individuals often hold differing beliefs when it comes to morality, ethics, and religion. Although scientific approaches such as truth tests may seem applicable in matters of faith, trying to use them would likely prove futile since proving the existence of a higher power or the creation of

Earth in six days is scientifically impossible.

According to the Bible, Christians acknowledge Jesus as their Lord while Hindus and Buddhists have their own beliefs and do not accept Jesus as their Lord even after conversion attempts. Every individual holds onto their faith, making it difficult to determine which is the ultimate truth. Furthermore, some argue that these beliefs are human-made and lack conclusive evidence of God's existence.

When ideas are subjected to truth tests to determine validity, people in need of valid proof often do this. However, if these claims cannot be proven by science which is considered a 'valid' way of finding truth, then why do billions of individuals still believe? Is it solely a matter of blind faith, or is there something beyond that justifies their beliefs? I believe that truth can be both individual and universal. In issues that are faith-based, truth is typically subjective. There is minimal concrete scientific evidence supporting religious beliefs. They are called faith because one has a personal belief in the matter and understands it to be true intuitively. Universal truths are facts scientifically and mathematically proven that cannot be debated.

Although scientific thinking is not always necessary to validate every truth, there is no singular approach to uncovering scientific knowledge. Despite new discoveries, scientific truths remain subject to revision if newer ideas prove them false. Many current scientific theories lack conclusive evidence and are analogous to matters of faith. While we may speculate and hypothesize, accurately describing what constitutes absolute truth remains elusive.