Is all our knowledge true merely for the time being, subject to change or renewal in due course of the future?

In other words, is all our knowledge 'time-bound'?Is all our knowledge true merely for the time being, subject to change or renewal in due course of the future?
Yes. Is there any scientific thought that has not undergone a change in the past 2000 years?Is all our knowledge true merely for the time being, subject to change or renewal in due course of the future?
For your sake and mine I should hope so.
Knowledge of the truth about our essential nature points to what is changeless - the immovable mover/creator of reality inherent in authentic being.





Constructing theories and learning 'facts' about the inner workings of physical reality, progresses across time as opposed to being 'time-bound' and is another entity entirely.
The key word here is ';all';, and because of that, the answer would have to be ';no';, with qualifications. The qualifications have to do with changing languages, which, is one is going to nickel-%26amp;-dime this question, entail that today's ';true'; statements , even if the states of affairs they represent don't change, will be meaningless in 100,000 years, and their equivalents will pe phrased in different words and perhaps different sorts of grammatical constructions.


___And the universe might contract fully back on itself, rendering the lows of physics null.


___But barring these peculiar cases, certain truths hold for the foreseeable human future. Naturally-born human beings are born into a complicated, physically-integrated world, and have to learn how to make their cognitive way through it, developing basic motor skills and hand-eye coordination. We have to employ at least minimal abstractions to render the world intelligible, since the capacities of our minds require a fairly linear format to represent the non-linear world to us in intelligible chunks.


___Truth in the strictest sense is linguistic (including mathematics as a language), for intuitive, felt, or gut truths are not presented in a format that allows them to be verified. Though I'm not persuaded by most of what He said, Wittgenstein's ';language games'; are a good presentation of the limited scope of linguistic endeavors, and truths that need to be worded clearly to be verifiable are contingent on our following some fundamental phenomenological and logical rules on which the more specific rules of the game depend. For instance, we treat the things of the world as logically distinct, though they are to a degree physically integrated, and we treat these connections as causalities, forces, etc, to compensate for the logical fudge of treating them as unambiguously distinct.


___Some of the truths that hold more or less forever have to do with the relation between the world as it is in its integration, and the world as we represent it to ourselves, as unambiguously distinct and plural. These would hold true for any perceiving being whose experiential access to (sensory) information in the world is spatiotemporally localized and private.


___Science may provide new theoretical frameworks periodically, but these don't so much displace the older ones as incorporate them into broader frameworks. The laws of motion may not have as wide an application as they did in Newton's presentation, but they hold for material objects of medium scale. What goes on at the quantum scale doesn't alter this.


___So not all truths are, in essence, subject to change. Though changes may occur in their linguistic representation, one can say that the laws of motion for medium-sized material objects in our sort of expanded universe will always hold. And spatiotemporally localized consciousnesses will always have to shoehorn statements about an integrated world into a linear format of singled-out linguistic elements to get them into a form that can fulfill the requisites of ';truth';.


___I'm sorry about the obscurity of this. Recent sleep-deprivation has interfered with clear thinking and especially with clear writing.
In a sense, yes. Things constantly change, but that is not why I say yes. Our understanding of things changes as new information is discovered. Were as the information was always there, it's maybe only been in recent times that the science was developed enough to take not of it. Think of what we know about cancer. Three or four hundred years ago, cancer was just ';the wrath of God';. Now, we know exactly what cancer is, how it works and spreads, how to treat it, and how to prevent it. In the past, medicine was not advanced enough to understand cancer, now it is. The information is new for us, but cancer itself has changed very little (if it has changed over time and I am wrong, please forgive my ingorence. It was the first example I could think of).
the ultimate basis of knowledge is whatever is clearly and distinctly perceived is true, which is best general-rule for knowledge. and yet knowledge is constantly stable, i think, that it is not affected by time per se, but can be challenged to be true by the generation pursuing it. *
knowledge is not limited and you cannot gain all knowledge from a particular source, that is why knowledge cannot be for the time being, it is bound to undergo changes because a lot of factors/things will influence it in the course of time, many fragments will be added and many will be deducted from it, that is why knowledge cannot be the same.


And knowledge should be renewed. everything is subjected to change so that a newer and a better form can exist. The same is applied to knowledge :)
I do believe that knowledge does change over time because facts change over time. I believe we create out own realities on an individual level to a degree, and on a collective level on a greater degree. I'm still not sure that there is an absolute ';truth';. I'm always hoping there is!
i dont think so. our knowledge increases every single day
cogito ergo sum.... I think therefore I am. Descartes knew this was the only truth he could be sure of 100%. It is a truth that never changes.





1+1 = 2. This is another truth that cannot change.