Perhaps we need to remove the concept of 'truth' as a goal in
Science and more utilise the concept of problem solving. Thus
'truth' is returned to it's origin, as a value; it is not 'up
front' but more something that comes upon reflection and so after
the event.
In Art (aka NOT Science) so the product of the art is given value
in the form ot 'good' or 'bad' more so than in Science where it
is the method that is given the value. A 'fact' is a 'fact' --
end of story, there is no 'good' nor 'bad'. In this sense so Art
is more 'foreground', 'in your face' whereas Science is more
background in trying to establish what is BEHIND things.
(especially these days when compared to the past of the
identification of things. Now we want to identify the patterns
behind the things).
Science seems to emphasise identification whereas Art favours
sensation, or perhaps re-identification. In this sense, so the
Art of your Science is to see the 'thing' in all of it's
manifestations (the many) and the Science of your Art is to not
lose sight of the 'thing' (the one).
By declaring Science as a structured method of identifying and
solving problems we shift emphasis to a relational, dynamic
process; it is doing rather than being. Thus Social Science deals
with identifying, categorisating and eliciting algorthmns and
formulas that solve social problems.
The 'truth' in this is cultural rather than universal and as such
is a value and the robustness of a solution is a measure of it's
usefulness that includes it's relationship to the universe as
well as the culture and as such becomes 'well'-valued and seen as
'true'..but then things can become over-valued....
What this leads to is the need for the use of discernment in both
camps, Science and 'other', and the recognition that there may be
'universal' truths but there are also cultural truths and as such
they 'die' with the culture.
If all that can be measured and categorised is determined by how
we represent and interpret the information so there are no
'truths' other than what we interpret to be 'truths' (!), but the
task of Science is to find solutions to problems, to remove
doubt, to make things 'clear' - end of story.
The entanglement of this task with values can lead to
'misunderstandings' and so we must be discerning in this linkage;
to link a solution to a problem with the concept of 'truth' is
false in that it is not a 100% guarantee in that one problem can
have many solutions depending on local contexts. In this sense,
Science as a process never stops trying out it's algorithms and
formulas due to the immense variations possible in contexts; the
emphasis is in validating the method rather than the product, the
product is a benefit, it acts as a confirmation on the robustness
of the method and THEN gets used as an example of 'truth'.
"X is the result, but of course we always knew that..."
In this sense so the 'truth' in Science is the value linked to
the method rather than the product; Science is not about the
search for truth but more about the search for a method of
identification that is consistant and ensures repeatability and
so the method is 'true'.
This leads into Heidegger and his search for "Being" in
that he felt Art was a better bet.. and I think he was right in
that 'pure' Art has nothing behind it, everything is out in the
open, and so open to interpretations, but there is structure in
emotion-led interpretations and this introduces a degree of
objectivity in values...