I have frequently heard the accusation that people working with natural/empirical sciences are in pursuit of the TRUTH. This is slander.
I, personally, do not use this word, and as far as my memory allows, I have not seen many scientific papers with this word in them. To make sure that my memory is not playing a trick on me, I decided to conduct a non-scientific study!
I have PDF copies of about 2700 published “scientific” papers on my laptop. About 95% of them are related to genetics/evolution. I searched all of my papers for the occurrence of the word ‘truth’ (by the advanced search option of Adobe Acrobat). I saved the results in an Excel file and marked different papers in different colors! Here are the results.
- Total number of papers: 2679 papers;
- The word ‘truth’ appears in: 112 papers;
- The author(s) is not a natural scientist: 30 papers;
- The author(s) is a natural scientist, but the paper is more than 75 years old: 11 papers;
- Remaining papers: 71 papers.
Out of the 71 remaining papers with the word ‘truth’ in them:
- Used by a natural scientist in a statistical context 25 papers.
- Used by a natural scientist as a figure of speech 10 papers.
- Used by a natural scientist in a philosophical way 36* papers.
*Please note that this group of 36 papers includes all cases where the separation of “philosophical truth”, “mathematical/statistical truth of a model or simulation”, and “figure of speech” was not easy. The list of papers in each category appears at the end of the text.
The above results show that the word “truth” is used very seldomly (in a maximum of 1.5% of the scientific publications).
Conclusion:
The use of the word ‘TRUTH’ is very rare among natural/empirical scientists.
LIST OF PAPERS
Items in the lists refer to the PDF filename that I use for my copies of scientific papers.
List of papers with the word ‘truth’ in them, but the author(s) is not a natural scientist:
- Barker_2015.pdf
- Berland_Reiser_2009.pdf
- Bradley_1995.pdf
- Brown_Hullender_2022.pdf
- Campos_2011.pdf
- Claus_1985.pdf
- Cohen_1985.pdf
- DeHaro_2020.pdf
- Elgin_Sober_2017.pdf
- Galavotti_2019.pdf
- Harrison_2007.pdf
- Harrison_2011.pdf
- Hathcoat_Meixner_2017.pdf
- Hood_2013.pdf
- Hull_1999.pdf
- Johnson_2017.pdf
- Lo_et_al_2015.pdf
- Melucci_1985.pdf
- MohanDas_2015.pdf
- Nagel_1974.pdf
- Niiniluoto_2018.pdf
- Norris_1996.pdf
- Olson_1968.pdf
- Popper_1961.pdf
- Rockman_2011_full.pdf
- Rosenblum_1994.pdf
- Struening_1996.pdf
- Walzer_1984.pdf
- Wilson_Sober_1994.pdf
- Ågren_2021.pdf
List of papers with the word ‘truth’ in them, whose author is a natural scientist, but the paper is older than 75 years:
- Bateson_1901.pdf
- Blasco_2001.pdf (quote from 1936)
- East_1910.pdf
- Galton_1886.pdf
- Johannsen_1911.pdf
- Pearson_1903.pdf
- Pearson_1904.pdf
- Rockman_2011_full.pdf (quote from 1909)
- vanDijk_et_al_2022.pdf (quote from 1861)
- Wright_1923.pdf
- Yule_1902.pdf
List of papers with the word ‘truth’ in them, whose author(s) is a natural scientist, but the word ‘truth’ is used as in a “mathematical/statistical ‘truth’ of a model or simulation”:
- Aalen_2004.pdf
- Auton_Abecasis_The_1000_Genomes_Project_Consortium_2015_s1.pdf
- Axelsson_et_al_2011.pdf
- Bakhshalizadeh_et_al_2021.pdf
- Burnham_Anderson_Manuscript_2004.pdf
- Byrska-Bishop_et_al_2021.pdf
- Carvajal_Rodriguez_2010.pdf
- Ding_et_al_2021.pdf
- Dudbridge_2013.pdf
- Frank_2012.pdf
- Gianola_2013.pdf
- Holland_1986.pdf
- Humphreys_et_al_2019.pdf
- Kerr_et_al_2005.pdf
- Lawson_et_al_2012.pdf
- Li_1956.pdf
- Meuwissen_Goddard_2007.pdf
- Monnahan_Kelly_2015.pdf
- Mu_et_al_2021.pdf
- Patxot_et_al_2021_SI.pdf
- Peng_et_al_2015.pdf
- Pook_et_al_2020.pdf
- Rubin_Arjas_2004.pdf
- Twomey_et_al_2021_Supp.pdf
- Wilson_et_al_2011.pdf
List of papers whose with the word ‘truth’ in them, whose author is a natural scientist, but used the word ‘truth’ as a figure of speech:
- Aguilar_et_al_2020.pdf
- Davis_1998.pdf
- Fairbairn_1997.pdf
- Georges_2007.pdf
- Iles_2008.pdf
- Jacquard_1975.pdf
- Rushton_1989.pdf
- Vicens_Kieft_2022.pdf
- Wright_1983.pdf
List of papers with word ‘truth’ in them, whose author is a natural scientist, and used the word ‘truth’ that could not be ruled out as “philosophical truth”:
- Boe_et_al_2019.pdf
- Buss_1995.pdf
- Chiappini_2001.pdf
- Chiappini_2014.pdf
- Crow_2002.pdf
- Dobzhansky_1973.pdf
- Epperson_1999.pdf
- Errington_et_al_2021.pdf
- Ewens_2016.pdf
- Goddard_2001.pdf
- Gould_Eldrege_1977.pdf
- Haldane_1964.pdf
- Hamilton_1964_I.pdf
- Kacser_Burns_1979.pdf
- Kamin_Goldberger_2002.pdf
- Kaplan_et_al_2016.pdf
- Kempthorne_1978.pdf
- Koltes_et_al_2019.pdf
- Lange_et_al_2014.pdf
- Leigh_2007.pdf
- Lemen_Freeman_1989.pdf
- Lewontin_1974.pdf
- Marjoram_et_al_2014.pdf
- Mayr_1977.pdf
- Morgan_Huttenhower_2012_Chapter_12.pdf
- Paaby_Rockman_2014.pdf
- Patterson_et_al_2006.pdf
- Payne_2012_Chapter_01.pdf
- Ripley_2004.pdf
- Rubin_2004.pdf
- Schadt_et_al_2009.pdf
- Searle_1991.pdf
- So_Sham_2010.pdf
- Stearns_2002.pdf
- Wei_Zhang_2019.pdf
- Wohns_et_al_2022_Supp.pdf
My good young friend, I am so proud of you and extremely happy to be on your mailing list.
It feels like I’m sitting right in front of you and if I do not understand what you are saying, it’s ok, I believe in you.
Joy & peace, Jaleh
Jaleh Neshat neshatjaleh@gmail.com neshatjaleh@gmail.com 919-740-9995
LikeLike
Dear Jaleh,
I should have written that the accusation comes from some of the “philosophers of natural science”, and many of the “sociologists of natural science”. The unwritten conclusion is that a bunch of loonies, who have no clue about natural science and natural scientists, have a lot of unfounded opinions about natural scientists. If I may call myself a scientist, I claim that the word “truth” is not a scientific term, and I do not believe in “truth”!
Yours / Hossein
LikeLiked by 1 person