User:Tomsimone01/sandbox

Truth in environmental science and philosophy:

Environmental Science

What are its truths (if it has any)?

Truth in environmental science is under a lot of controversy [1]. Environmental science aims to study human relationships with the natural environment, and as a result, also aims to tackle the current environmental crisis. However, the shared truth as regarded by environmental scientists is that climate change is unpredictable but it is happening and is heavily influenced by humans. That said, another truth shared by environmental scientists are that humans do have an impact on the climate, and over the last few hundred years, have been overall having a negative impact [2] Other than that general idea, the findings about specific problems can vary largely or minimally but all focus on the truth that humans are negatively influencing the environment and that there must be action taken for humans to either or both adapt and mitigate.

However, these empirical truths shared by scientists and a large majority of the world aren't necessarily considered truth by others.

How does it come to realise/evaluate truth?

Truth in environmental science involves studying the impact changes have on different ecosystems [3]. Although there are multiple types of environmental science, most of them follow the same idea of studying relationships and correlations between physical characteristics of the environment / physical changes in the environment (either human or naturally caused) and it's impact on different species or organisms [4]. This is usually done by looking at trends of different environmental changes, such as atmospheric greenhouse gases [5].

Is truth important to the discipline?

Truth is important to this discipline in terms of actually creating productive change and acting upon the data. As a result, it can eb said that the truth from this discipline is needed to become universally truth.

The shared truths by scientists in this field focuses on the human impact in the environment. However, due to people - especially those in power- preferring their "personal truths" of climate change not being real, being natural, or not being our responsibility, the findings and potential solutions created by this scientists are rendered useless. For example, with all the climate change denial by people in power (such as Donald Trump [6]), there is still a lack of action to combat and the negative impacts and mitigate the causes of climate change, as seen by the Trump administration suing California as they attempt to tackle climate change [7].

Therefore, it can be said that shared truths in this field is imperative in order to make the discipline's findings useful in the real world.

Philosophy

What are its truths (if it has any)?

Truths in philosophy can be defined as claims which are largely accepted by the philosophical community. Of course, the nature of these truths depends largely on the sub-branch of philosophy being considered (e.g. epistemology, aesthetics, ethics, political philosophy etc.,). For example, most members of the philosophical community, and society as a whole, would consider the claim 'killing innocent people is wrong' as objectively and intrinsically true; no matter whether this claim is evaluated through a western, eastern, deontological, or religious philosophical perspective, the conclusion will most likely be the same. However, certain ethical theories could argue the contrary. For example, hedonistic utilitarianism, which argues that the correct moral action is that which brings the greatest amount of pleasure to the greatest number of people Driver, Julia (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/), could justify the killing of an innocent person in order to benefit a larger group. This type of theory is known as a 'consequentialist theory' as it focuses on the outcomes of an action rather than the intrinsic moral nature of the action. Furthermore, descriptive philosophical theories such as moral relativism argue that "moral claims are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others" Westacott, Emrys (https://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/). This means that there are no definite ethical truths and that we should accept this. Thus, to summarize, whether or not there are 'truths' in philosophy largely comes down to which perspective you are taking within the subject area of philosophy.

How does it come to realise/evaluate truth?

Reaching philosophical truths is done through evaluating philosophical claims through the perspective of different philosophical theories. For example, within the sub-branch of political philosophy, most would consider the statement 'governing bodies should always preserve the freedom of their people' as true. No matter whether this claim is evaluated through a utilitarian, libertarian, Kantian, or even arguably a marxist perspective, the outcome generally supports the claim. However, the conclusions these theories offer cannot always be binary (e.g. 'true' or 'false'). While all of the political philosophy theories/perspectives listed may support the preservation of the freedom of a society, they may do so to different extents. One may argue that this effects how true the claim really is, as different philosophers and their theories may have different views on the definition of 'freedom'. At this point, one must accept that semantic litigation is also crucial when evaluating truths in philosophy, on top of the consideration of different philosophical theories.

Is truth important to the discipline?

The answer to this question largely depends on whether or not one views 'Philosophy' as a mere intellectual activity or a subject area with instrumental value. For example, one may argue that the goal of political philosophers is to develop claims and theories which are regarded as 'true' by the philosophical community; in this respect, truth is absolutely crucial to philosophy as the ultimate goal of political philosophy is to discover more about ourselves and the world around us to improve the way we govern countries and communities. On the contrary, one may argue that the outcomes of philosophical activity are far less important than the philosophical activity itself; they may recognize that no claim in philosophy can ever be completely regarded as 'true', unlike other subject areas such as mathematics (we all agree that 1+1=2). In this respect, the 'trueness' of claims in philosophy are not as important as the mental exercise one gains from participating in philosophical activity.

Approaches to Knowledge – Super concepts (Ongoing)

A concept which arises in one discipline and becomes useful in others eventually.

7 super concepts:

System

•	A system is a set of interacting parts which form a complex whole. •	Every system is: delineated by spatial boundaries, surrounded by its environment, described by its structure and purpose, expressed in its functioning. •	Old fashioned definition defined by physical boundaries – now they no longer need to be physical. •	The whole is greater than the sum of its parts •

Fiction

Complexity

Structuralism

Entropy

Deconstruction

Evolution

32489

Chem – bond building and bond breaking Bio – assimilation of nutrients Physics – changing of physical state

Approaches to knowledge lecture – Theories of knowedge

Positive – Objective and realist

Interprative – phenomenological

Constructivist – Social constructionism

Different typologies of truth

Science/engineering etc: Objective, positive, empirical

Social sciences: subjective, normative, relative etc.

Science – Truths are provisional (Only true until proven otherwise) – Or are they? Can we consider truths in science as objective.

Arts/ humanities- ‘

WEEK 2