Truth is something that cannot change. Science tries to find the 'truth'
but in a scientific environment, the truth can never be found. Proof of
science remains illusive although a case can be made and strengthened it
can even take the form of a theory or law but in the end one observation
can turn everything upside down.
Keith: Is it possible to know something that is not true? And how can one
claim
that a given hypothesis is the BEST explanation of observed phenomena
without having some preconceived notion of what is true (e.g. the
universe is materialistic)?
One does not need a notion of 'true' to determine if a hypothesis models
the observed phenomenon and how well it models.
Keith: If I am to say that a given theory is the best possible explanation
for a particular observation, I must have some idea about what is true in
order to conclude that the hypothesis in question should be adopted in
favor of its competitors.
That is incorrect. It requires only comparisson of observations and
hypotheses. No knowledge of the true 'hypothesis' is required to determine
how well a hypothesis is supported by data.
Keith: If I have no concept of what is true about the nature of reality or
the universe, by what standards am I justified in claiming that a certain
hypothesis is better than any others?
Observations.
Regards
Pim