සිංහල ලිත් ඉලක්කම්
Conjectures, refutations and the search for truths
Science, symbolic truths and the devilමේ ලිපියේ අන්තර්ගතය සමග මට ප්රශ්න තියෙනවා. එහෙත් මෙය පළ කරනුයේ සත්යය යනු කුමක්දැයි නිර්වචනය කළ හැකි පඬියකු සිටී දැයි දැන ගැනීමටයි. හැකිනම් ගණිතමය, විද්යාත්මක හෝ දාර්ශනික සත්යය නිර්වචනය කරන්න. නිර්වචනය පමණක් සෑහේ. හෑලි අනවශ්යයයි.
This article is from Embo Reports. I do not agree with some of the contents. I reproduce the article only to look for a smart Alec who could define truth, whether scientific, mathematical or philosophical. A definition, without an essay, would suffice. I am sorry for the format of the article.
Science & Society
Conjectures, refutations and the search
for truths
Science, symbolic truths and the devil
G Paolo Dotto1,2,3
What is truth? This is the question
Pilate asks Jesus at the beginning
of Bulgakov’s† novel The Master
and Margherita. In his conversation with a
newspaper editor and convinced atheist, the
devil, in the person of Professor Woland,
supports the veracity of his account of Jesus’
trial with the startling prediction that the good
editor will soon be dead: His head will be
chopped off as the consequence of the action
of an unsuspecting housewife. This turns out
to be true: The man slipped on cooking oil
spilled on the ground and falls under the
wheels of a streetcar that severs his head.
A time of post-truths?
Enlightened citizens of the 21st century now
dismiss all talk of the devil as superstitions of
medieval people locked in their self-incurred
tutelage. But what is the possibility that the
devil, having donned all personalized forms
of identification—Satan, Lucifer, Woland,
Mephisto and so on—is still around and
seduces us to commit evil deeds? Or viewed
from another perspective: Is the present time
of confusion and “post-truths” related to a
loss of “objective” truths on which we base
rational decisions? It seems that anything is
“true” these days amidst exponentially
increasing complexities and conflicting
messages. However, despite recent claims of
“post-science”, the principles of scientific
inquiry, if correctly understood and applied,
can help to clarify and reaffirm the reality on
which we are all grounded. It is on this reality
that we depend to agree with others about
basic facts and to move on.
......................................................
“But what is the possibility
that the devil, having donned
all personalized forms of
identification [. . .] is still
around and seduces us to
commit evil deeds?”
dismiss all talk of the devil as superstitions of
medieval people locked in their self-incurred
tutelage. But what is the possibility that the
devil, having donned all personalized forms
of identification—Satan, Lucifer, Woland,
Mephisto and so on—is still around and
seduces us to commit evil deeds? Or viewed
from another perspective: Is the present time
of confusion and “post-truths” related to a
loss of “objective” truths on which we base
rational decisions? It seems that anything is
“true” these days amidst exponentially
increasing complexities and conflicting
messages. However, despite recent claims of
“post-science”, the principles of scientific
inquiry, if correctly understood and applied,
can help to clarify and reaffirm the reality on
which we are all grounded. It is on this reality
that we depend to agree with others about
basic facts and to move on.
......................................................
“But what is the possibility
that the devil, having donned
all personalized forms of
identification [. . .] is still
around and seduces us to
commit evil deeds?”
......................................................
The philosopher Karl Jaspers stated that
ontology and peri-echo-ontology are the
“science” of the encompassing being that
sustains and drives existence. These sound
like arcane and obscure words that only
philosophers or theologians care about.
However, being is, above all, an essential
element of language. It is only by declining
the verb to be that we can think and express
who and where we are in connection with
others. As such, we cannot get out of being,
as it is on being that we depend in life. And
it is for that reason that we have to understand
being and the world in which we are.
The truths to which philosophy and ethics
aspire should not be confused with scientific
discoveries. Nonetheless, all forms of knowledge
are only approximations of the reality in
which we are immersed and in which we need
to orient ourselves. As such, scientific and
philosophical/ethical investigations have a
single common basis, and there is a need of
communication and mutual understanding to
firm our steps and avoid shifting and ultimately
destroying paradigms. This is nothing
new. Socrates claimed to know only one thing,
that he knew nothing. And yet, he lived—and
died—for his uncompromising search of truth.
As quoted by Hannah Arendt in the first chapter
of The Origins of Totalitarianism, Plato in
his fight against the Sophists of his time
pointed out the insecure position of truth in
the world, since “from opinions comes persuasion
and not from truth” (Phaedrus, 260).
ontology and peri-echo-ontology are the
“science” of the encompassing being that
sustains and drives existence. These sound
like arcane and obscure words that only
philosophers or theologians care about.
However, being is, above all, an essential
element of language. It is only by declining
the verb to be that we can think and express
who and where we are in connection with
others. As such, we cannot get out of being,
as it is on being that we depend in life. And
it is for that reason that we have to understand
being and the world in which we are.
The truths to which philosophy and ethics
aspire should not be confused with scientific
discoveries. Nonetheless, all forms of knowledge
are only approximations of the reality in
which we are immersed and in which we need
to orient ourselves. As such, scientific and
philosophical/ethical investigations have a
single common basis, and there is a need of
communication and mutual understanding to
firm our steps and avoid shifting and ultimately
destroying paradigms. This is nothing
new. Socrates claimed to know only one thing,
that he knew nothing. And yet, he lived—and
died—for his uncompromising search of truth.
As quoted by Hannah Arendt in the first chapter
of The Origins of Totalitarianism, Plato in
his fight against the Sophists of his time
pointed out the insecure position of truth in
the world, since “from opinions comes persuasion
and not from truth” (Phaedrus, 260).
Looking for truth
The main impetus for scientific investigations
—and philosophical and ethical inquiries—is
“simply” to seek and tell the truth. It is not a
vague, nebulous truth, based on ill-defined
notions and personal feelings; it is a truth that
provides us with directions and that helps us
to understand where we are, what is hot or
cold, black or white, right or wrong.
......................................................
“The main impetus for
scientific investigations – and
philosophical and ethical
inquiries – is ‘simply’ to seek
and tell the truth.”
—and philosophical and ethical inquiries—is
“simply” to seek and tell the truth. It is not a
vague, nebulous truth, based on ill-defined
notions and personal feelings; it is a truth that
provides us with directions and that helps us
to understand where we are, what is hot or
cold, black or white, right or wrong.
......................................................
“The main impetus for
scientific investigations – and
philosophical and ethical
inquiries – is ‘simply’ to seek
and tell the truth.”
......................................................
And yet, any truth is never final. It is
based on gathering information and formulating
working hypotheses that need to be
validated or refuted by hard evidence, starting
from and delving back into the “reality”
into which we are all immersed. A simple
fact—which is unappreciated by those on
the outside—is that a single scientific paper,
< 10 pages long and with as few as 3–4 figures,
is the result of several years of work
by a team of people who dedicate enormous
amounts of time and efforts along with serious financial commitment. Their conclusions
are subjected to rigorous testing and
review before they can be published to serve
as a premise for the work of others.
But it is also important to keep in mind
that behind any scientific article, no matter
how well and carefully documented, can be
strong biases, just like behind any philosophical
work. Scientists and non-scientists
alike have to deal and operate with their
individual points of view, history and
based on gathering information and formulating
working hypotheses that need to be
validated or refuted by hard evidence, starting
from and delving back into the “reality”
into which we are all immersed. A simple
fact—which is unappreciated by those on
the outside—is that a single scientific paper,
< 10 pages long and with as few as 3–4 figures,
is the result of several years of work
by a team of people who dedicate enormous
amounts of time and efforts along with serious financial commitment. Their conclusions
are subjected to rigorous testing and
review before they can be published to serve
as a premise for the work of others.
But it is also important to keep in mind
that behind any scientific article, no matter
how well and carefully documented, can be
strong biases, just like behind any philosophical
work. Scientists and non-scientists
alike have to deal and operate with their
individual points of view, history and
motivations.
Principles of scientific inquiry
With these limitations in mind, a few principles
of scientific inquiry can be formulated
which would also help philosophical and
of scientific inquiry can be formulated
which would also help philosophical and
ethical investigations.
A first principle of scientific inquiry is
epistemological: Scientific truth can only be
approached by approximation, through the
process that Karl Popper called “Conjectures
and refutations”. When this principle is
forgotten and science becomes “dogmatic”,
epistemological: Scientific truth can only be
approached by approximation, through the
process that Karl Popper called “Conjectures
and refutations”. When this principle is
forgotten and science becomes “dogmatic”,
it negates itself.
A second principle is that there is a direction
in discovery. Even if only tentative and
“hypothetical”, scientific truth does not allow
to go back, it is only possible to move forward.
As such, scientific discoveries have a relative
value but are never arbitrary: They serve as
stepping stones on which to build a house.
A third principle is that scientific truths
can only be “symbolic”. The etymological
meaning of symbol is “putting together”
(from the Greek syn-ballein); it refers to a
multidimensional reality and is capable of
synthesizing complexity into manageable
simplicity. The value of a symbolic word is
greater than the word itself and is part of the
reality to which it points (Fig 1). At the
same time, symbols need to be carefully
defined; otherwise, symbolic language
in discovery. Even if only tentative and
“hypothetical”, scientific truth does not allow
to go back, it is only possible to move forward.
As such, scientific discoveries have a relative
value but are never arbitrary: They serve as
stepping stones on which to build a house.
A third principle is that scientific truths
can only be “symbolic”. The etymological
meaning of symbol is “putting together”
(from the Greek syn-ballein); it refers to a
multidimensional reality and is capable of
synthesizing complexity into manageable
simplicity. The value of a symbolic word is
greater than the word itself and is part of the
reality to which it points (Fig 1). At the
same time, symbols need to be carefully
defined; otherwise, symbolic language
becomes babble.
The power of symbols
The symbols of mathematics and physics,
starting from numbers, are fundamental for
these disciplines, as for all other advances in
science to which they have led. In his book
“Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy”,
Bertrand Russell expressed great admiration
for Giuseppe Peano, an Italian mathematician,
who laid the foundation of
mathematical logic starting with his first
axiom that zero is a natural number
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms).
The notations he introduced are just
symbols, but it is from these symbols that
the great works of Kurt Go¨del and John von
Neumann arose which led to Boolean
language and computers. In biology and
medicine, words such as genetics, epigenetics
and metabolomics are equally important
symbolic terms referring to dynamic and
complex realities that determine our lives.
The most sophisticated symbols in the natural
sciences are “theories”: formulations of
principles that provide a keystone for interpretation,
starting from numbers, are fundamental for
these disciplines, as for all other advances in
science to which they have led. In his book
“Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy”,
Bertrand Russell expressed great admiration
for Giuseppe Peano, an Italian mathematician,
who laid the foundation of
mathematical logic starting with his first
axiom that zero is a natural number
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms).
The notations he introduced are just
symbols, but it is from these symbols that
the great works of Kurt Go¨del and John von
Neumann arose which led to Boolean
language and computers. In biology and
medicine, words such as genetics, epigenetics
and metabolomics are equally important
symbolic terms referring to dynamic and
complex realities that determine our lives.
The most sophisticated symbols in the natural
sciences are “theories”: formulations of
principles that provide a keystone for interpretation,
prediction and more research.
Evolution is a theory of theories that
provides a basis for deciphering biological
phenomena in quantitative terms. According
to the British historian Peter Watson, the
theory of evolution was the most important
intellectual and conceptual achievement of
the 19th century as it provides an interpretative
key for all of the living reality of which
we are part. Yet, it must be emphasized that
the theory of evolution, like any other
theory, is a “symbolic expression of facts”,
that, as any scientific truth, must be tested
provides a basis for deciphering biological
phenomena in quantitative terms. According
to the British historian Peter Watson, the
theory of evolution was the most important
intellectual and conceptual achievement of
the 19th century as it provides an interpretative
key for all of the living reality of which
we are part. Yet, it must be emphasized that
the theory of evolution, like any other
theory, is a “symbolic expression of facts”,
that, as any scientific truth, must be tested
and challenged by “Conjectures and Refutations”.
Even long-held views must always be
reconsidered, challenged and even discarded as part of science’s forward process. Scientists
should explain to others the dynamic
process by which these results are reached.
......................................................
“. . . the theory of evolution,
like any other theory, is a
“symbolic expression of facts”,
that, as any scientific truth,
must be tested and challenged
by ‘Conjectures and
Refutations’.”
reconsidered, challenged and even discarded as part of science’s forward process. Scientists
should explain to others the dynamic
process by which these results are reached.
......................................................
“. . . the theory of evolution,
like any other theory, is a
“symbolic expression of facts”,
that, as any scientific truth,
must be tested and challenged
by ‘Conjectures and
Refutations’.”
......................................................
Like science, philosophy is symbolic. The
deeper philosophical inquiries delve into
reality, the more difficult the language
becomes. Of necessity, “going beyond” realities
immediately connected with experience
implies the use of words with a different
meaning from common use. Precise definitions
become therefore essential for
mutual understanding, and many debates
result from problems of communication,
rather than real disagreements. On the other
hand, faced with the mystery of ultimate
realities, the language of philosophy must be
as concise as possible. Like scientific truths,
philosophical and ethical truths can be
expressed in symbolic words: natural law
and sacrality of life, or the rights of man, are
all symbols that point “beyond”.
To have an impact on reality, symbols
must be clear-cut and well defined. At the
same time, their validity must be guaranteed,
in science as in all other kinds of human
activity, by a recognized “authority”—the
“contribution to the common good” ceases
to be an abstract concept as soon as the tax
revenue authority demands its share. In
today’s society, all forms of authority seem
to be fading away, which carries the risk that
symbolic truths, on which these authorities
deeper philosophical inquiries delve into
reality, the more difficult the language
becomes. Of necessity, “going beyond” realities
immediately connected with experience
implies the use of words with a different
meaning from common use. Precise definitions
become therefore essential for
mutual understanding, and many debates
result from problems of communication,
rather than real disagreements. On the other
hand, faced with the mystery of ultimate
realities, the language of philosophy must be
as concise as possible. Like scientific truths,
philosophical and ethical truths can be
expressed in symbolic words: natural law
and sacrality of life, or the rights of man, are
all symbols that point “beyond”.
To have an impact on reality, symbols
must be clear-cut and well defined. At the
same time, their validity must be guaranteed,
in science as in all other kinds of human
activity, by a recognized “authority”—the
“contribution to the common good” ceases
to be an abstract concept as soon as the tax
revenue authority demands its share. In
today’s society, all forms of authority seem
to be fading away, which carries the risk that
symbolic truths, on which these authorities
are based, fade with them.
Throughout history, religions have had
the fundamental task of expressing ontological
and ethical truths with the authority of
“symbolic dogmas”. The myth of Isis and
Osiris or the Song of Songs gave voice to the
mysterious power of life and death. “In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God”. The first
verse of John’s Gospel describes how a
single word became flesh. It has brought
together God and Man at a precise time in
history, not as an abstract concept but a
transforming reality, which has been personally
encountered by many, like Saul on his
the fundamental task of expressing ontological
and ethical truths with the authority of
“symbolic dogmas”. The myth of Isis and
Osiris or the Song of Songs gave voice to the
mysterious power of life and death. “In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God”. The first
verse of John’s Gospel describes how a
single word became flesh. It has brought
together God and Man at a precise time in
history, not as an abstract concept but a
transforming reality, which has been personally
encountered by many, like Saul on his
way to Damascus.
The devil in confusion
When symbols lose their grasp, they are ultimately
discarded. To many people, the existence
of the devil, like that of God, seems
like a thing from a medieval past. The
devil’s various embodiments, such as the
one Faust was dealing with, seem only a
product of fiction or imagination. They gave
tangible personam to the existential and
universal condition by which even now we
discarded. To many people, the existence
of the devil, like that of God, seems
like a thing from a medieval past. The
devil’s various embodiments, such as the
one Faust was dealing with, seem only a
product of fiction or imagination. They gave
tangible personam to the existential and
universal condition by which even now we
are threatened.
What then is the devil? If the etymological
meaning of “symbol” is to put together,
that of “devil” is the opposite, to divide: The
old English word deofol derives from the
Latin dia-bolus and the Greek dia-ballein.
As discussed above, any form of truth is
expressed by symbols. Each symbol, in turn,
is based on other symbols, concepts and
words. One can say that a symbol is as a
building made of bricks, which must be
properly squared to erect a stable construction.
If the bricks are not squared, they do
not fit well together and eventually the
meaning of “symbol” is to put together,
that of “devil” is the opposite, to divide: The
old English word deofol derives from the
Latin dia-bolus and the Greek dia-ballein.
As discussed above, any form of truth is
expressed by symbols. Each symbol, in turn,
is based on other symbols, concepts and
words. One can say that a symbol is as a
building made of bricks, which must be
properly squared to erect a stable construction.
If the bricks are not squared, they do
not fit well together and eventually the
entire edifice crumbles.
Sym-bolus, as a construction, carries
therefore within itself the seeds of its own
destruction and can turn into a dia-bolus.
The devil can be found wherever there is
confusion, when symbols lose their meaning
and the words or concepts on which they
are based are ill interpreted or manipulated.
The white can be mistaken for black or both
become a mixture of greys, a fog that blocks
therefore within itself the seeds of its own
destruction and can turn into a dia-bolus.
The devil can be found wherever there is
confusion, when symbols lose their meaning
and the words or concepts on which they
are based are ill interpreted or manipulated.
The white can be mistaken for black or both
become a mixture of greys, a fog that blocks
the view.
There is another venue for the devil to
affirm its power. Each building risks becoming
a fortress, excluding those outside and
imprisoning those inside. Symbolic constructions
can become thus an obstacle to mutual
communication and understanding. It can
take a huge amount of energy and great
personal risk to force open a building’s
doors. The exponential increase of knowledge
and complexities in any individual field
is such that it is much easier and
comfortable to build barriers and walls than
affirm its power. Each building risks becoming
a fortress, excluding those outside and
imprisoning those inside. Symbolic constructions
can become thus an obstacle to mutual
communication and understanding. It can
take a huge amount of energy and great
personal risk to force open a building’s
doors. The exponential increase of knowledge
and complexities in any individual field
is such that it is much easier and
comfortable to build barriers and walls than
to pull them down.
The existence of the devil is therefore not
simply a superstition of ancient times, or an
abstract concept of little importance. The
devil, as a principle of confusion and
discord, is wherever there is lack of clarity
and fear of opening up to others. The devil
is very much present and forceful whenever
there is ignorance and superstition, but also
when any group of people feel justified to
impose their own truths or values on others.
......................................................
“The devil is very much
present and forceful whenever
there is ignorance and
superstition, but also when
any group of people feel
justified to impose their own
truths or values on others.”
simply a superstition of ancient times, or an
abstract concept of little importance. The
devil, as a principle of confusion and
discord, is wherever there is lack of clarity
and fear of opening up to others. The devil
is very much present and forceful whenever
there is ignorance and superstition, but also
when any group of people feel justified to
impose their own truths or values on others.
......................................................
“The devil is very much
present and forceful whenever
there is ignorance and
superstition, but also when
any group of people feel
justified to impose their own
truths or values on others.”
......................................................
Exorcism
The principles of science can come to the
rescue and serve as a solid point of reference
to address difficult ontological and ethical
problems. Falsification or misrepresentation
of truths of any kind is a great threat to all
of us. At the same time, is the fallacy of all
divisions between “us and them”, be it
ethnicity and race, sex, political party or
rescue and serve as a solid point of reference
to address difficult ontological and ethical
problems. Falsification or misrepresentation
of truths of any kind is a great threat to all
of us. At the same time, is the fallacy of all
divisions between “us and them”, be it
ethnicity and race, sex, political party or
creed.
Scientists can play an important role in
this difficult moment, provided they escape
the devil’s temptation of viewing “their
truths” as the unquestionable foundation of
all reality. Scientists need to open doors and
windows of their well-constructed building
and explain their views and speak with
others, so that we all can work together in a
symphonic world. It is worth trying, as the
this difficult moment, provided they escape
the devil’s temptation of viewing “their
truths” as the unquestionable foundation of
all reality. Scientists need to open doors and
windows of their well-constructed building
and explain their views and speak with
others, so that we all can work together in a
symphonic world. It is worth trying, as the
stakes are high.
License: This is an open access article under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original work
is properly cited.
ª 2020 The Author EMBO reports 21: e49924 | 2020 3 of 3
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original work
is properly cited.
ª 2020 The Author EMBO reports 21: e49924 | 2020 3 of 3
