The Limits of Truth

Anita Makri claims:
... of the two industries I work in that are concerned with truth --- science and journalism --- only the latter has seriously engaged and looked for answers. Scientists need to catch up, or they risk further marginalization ...
BULLSHIT: Science has never been "a source of truth". The business of science is to make models that accurately relate to measurements and observations. The only value of a scientific model is that it works, at least to some quantifiable extent.

I only know of one valid place for truth. That place is mathematics/logic: which is all about evaluating the relationship of one idea to another. If we are lucky (and sufficiently clever) the relationship can be determined to be true or false. That is why mathematics is useful for science --- because it enables us to examine the relationships between models, to see if there are some unanticipated inconsistencies or limitations on the models...

If truth has any place in journalism then I just don't see it. Journalists would do well to stick to accuracy and never speak of truth. Politician's, also.

I'd suggest that --- except for mathematics --- all those disciplines that subscribe to truth are also dominated by ideology: politics, religion, sociology, philosophy, journalism, history, the list goes on. That is why they all fail.

Indeed, such disciplines have little to do with truth. They are mostly in the business of myth-making as a tool to attain influence, money and power. This worked well when people were isolated in their little communities, all brainlessly believing their local myths.

The world-wide-web turned out to be a great tool for spreading myths. Mostly, those who complain are doing so because the other guys mythology conflicts with their own mythology.