boyjohn

[boyjohn]

Looking into the Theory of Knowledge I am pondering can knowledge ever achieve permanence or all only of limited validity. One upon a time it was that a flat Earth or the Earth as being at the centre of the solar system. Both were held as legitimate knowledge for many centuries and supporters faught against any attempt to suggest otherwise. So how do we know when to debunk that which have a long held truth. And can such new emerging knowledge truths only come through science?

[FlashDangerpants]

I look forward to seeing that in Phil of Science sub. I don't think most of those guys hold that scientific truths are sparkly and eternal though. Scientific method seems (to this outsider) to be more a way of continually finding out that old truths were less complete than supposed.

[boyjohn]

Yes indeed. Knowledge/Truth can it seems only ever be contingent and provisional

[Age]

Looking into the Theory of Knowledge I am pondering can knowledge ever achieve permanence or all only of limited validity. One upon a time it was that a flat Earth or the Earth as being at the centre of the solar system. Both were held as legitimate knowledge for many centuries and supporters faught against any attempt to suggest otherwise. So how do we know when to debunk that which have a long held truth. And can such new emerging knowledge truths only come through science?

Will you define 'science'.

A Truth, by definition, can not be debunked. And, if a so-called 'long held truth' could be debunked, then 'it' was not even the Truth, to even begin with

[boyjohn]

Why would I want to define science my concern was about knowledge. It seems you see absolute truths, which if so could not be debunked. Yet I know of no absolute truths. Could be people thought Newton found an absolute truth then along came Enstien. And now we have quantum theory. So it should be clear that no truth can be assumed absolute. Therefore all truths can in time be debunked. This though does not make them untruths only truths which are contingent.