Two-dimensional truth in Science

Does truth have more dimensions or only one? By that I do not mean universal
truth, but the truth in a certain scientific field, whether it's natural or social science.
Natural and social science have a totally different scientific fields, so we cannot compare
their fields directly. We can only compare them in their understanding of the truth. The
basic goal of any science is truth. Benefit can be measure, but not the goal of science.
Benefit can be the goal of politics or law, but in some true scientific way, even in them
can not be more important then truth itself. Lets think what happens when benefit takes
it's place as the main reason of the scientific research. At the trial, the judge, he or she
should decide whether the person he / she thinks is really right or the other person he / she
thinks would personally have more benefits. This may sound banal, because even if it is
judged for the benefit of this other one, it would have no major implications in the global
sense. In practice, we can be convinced that such cases were, and not once. But what if
the decidion on the judge would implicate that this second. But what if a judge's decision
leads to the person whom he declares the winner of this trial, later making an even greater
crime than the previous one. This proces could happend again and again more times. If
this were to continue in infinity, it would end up as a disaster. So somewhere it must stop,
before the disaster really happens. This is where the truth appears on stage, in order to
win against the benefits.1

The main motive to write this work was the book by Professor Dr. Richard
Dawkins, the infamous „The selfish gene“. In his preface to second edition of this book
he has gave one great view on the truth itself. He explained this by using the metaphor of
the Necker cube. It looks like this:2

Professor Dawkins says: „This is a two-dimensional pattern of ink

on paper, but it is perceived as a transparent, three-dimensional
cube. Stare at it for a few seconds and it will change to face in a
different direction. Carry on staring and it will flip back to the
original cube... Neither is more correct than the other.“ 3 So both
cube that we see is the same, they have same dimensions, same
Figure 1
measures, they refers to the same object. So both cubes that we see
are the same, they have same dimensions, same measures, they refer to the same object.
The only difference lies in the angle under which this object is observed. If we replace
this cube with any scientific subject, can we still have two angles of observing this
subject? Professor Dawkins says: „The Necker cube model is misleading because it
suggests that the two ways of seeing are equally good.“4 Let's say that the term "angle"

1
Someone could call this an attack on utilitarianism, but we will not consider this question now.
2
See Figure 1.
3
Dawkins, Richard, „The selfish gene“, Oxford university press Inc., New York, 1989. Page XV
4
Same, Page XVI
applied to some scientific subject refers to the way we look at that subject. We can more
precisely say that it refers to the methodology we use in our research. Let's look at the
following example: A table is set before us. We know nothing about that table. Will it be
the same if we look at that table from side or from up? Of course it won't be the same. If
we look at it from up then we will we a four-sided object that has certain colour and
dimension. At the other hand, if we look at it from side we will see that it has four legs
that holds the table. That's something we could not notice from the top. So it shows how
the view from side is a better that a view from up, in this case. But in general, we could
also say that the view from side in this case is more scientific then the view from up is.
This two views having a totaly different perception of their subject. So is there any way
that they both can be right? I don't think so! What gives more right to the one view then to
the other? A better „angle“ or, as we have said before, a better methodology.

Let's check this out for another example: When the microscope was discovered, it
was a great shock for the scientific world. Practicaly it has eliminated the metaphysic
dominance in philosophy and made the nature as the one and only subject of scientific
researches. It made us see the world that we hasn't seen before. But it wasn't an imaginary
world of demons and angels, but it was a world of micro-beings. Whats the difference
beetween this two worlds? The first one is „imaginary“ so practicaly nobody have seen it
in real, while the second is proven as real by this „magic“ gadget so called „microscope“.
Let's just better explain this „nobody have seen it in real“. There are some people that
have said that they have seen some of this mistical beins, some have even comunicated
with them. There are people that are saying that they have been going in other worlds and
so on. That all sound like a conspiracy theory. The number on the people that have been
into this „mystical“ things is practicaly a very minor. When some of us mortals tries to do
the same what they do, practicaly nothing happens. So, they must be really special, for
example they are higher beings than us who haven't seen or been in anything like that.
But should we believe more than the evidence? Because indeed, we can only believe
them, we can not prove their theories of the mystical. At the other side, we have the
microscope which give us a direct view into „another world“. That micro-world is
practicaly available for any person who got eyes, who can see, and who can believe in
that what he see. This term "believes" is not the same as I use to describe our mystical
faith. The main difference lies in the fact that the mystical belief is our belief in someone
or something else. Belief in scientific evidence is the belief in oneself. Belief in oneself is
power of rationality. The power of rationality is the two-dimensional truth. So basically
my point is that there is no three-dimensional truth, but only two-dimensional truth in
science. Practically this denies any relativization of evidence in science.