First we must be absolutely clear what we mean by 'truth' in this context. As Dr De Sousa states, 'validation' is a much preferable term, and permits 'truths' to fluctuate over time as theories better able to explain observed phenomena are conceived and developed. It was 'true' in pre-Copernican days that the Earth was the centre of the solar system. It isn't so today. Scientific 'truth' is the consensus of the current generation of scientists over some particular explanation of some particular phenomenon. By definition therefore in areas where there is no strong consensus, we do not yet have a scientific truth.

I am not sure what you are asking regarding the relation of scientific truth to the "moral, ethical and aesthetical values" of research. Are you suggesting that 'truth' is subservient to moral or ethical imperatives?

Thank you for your reply Tony.

I’m not only suggesting that truth is subversive to morals. Many examples of fraudulent research prove us that it is.

As stated previously by our colleague Ivo, I also wonder if there is any completely free research choice and, in consequence, scientific research always is subsumed into a social process of opportunities, mobility, promotion, prestige, status and all those categories organizing social positions.

So what parameters guide you in your research?

I believe first come morals. This is a more inner personal question a researcher should ask him/herself, do you do your research for your personal advancement, as contribution for the community... etc?

Secondly, ethics come into play. This a more inter personal question, what is the real impact of my research in the world surrounding me?

Thirdly, come aesthetics. Here the question involves the two previous ones; do you find beauty in your research? How does it make you feel? What sense do you make out of your research? How do you feel rewarded by the work you do?

My question is leaned towards discernment, as an ability to ''frame'' a situation in terms of what is important for that situation...

Pedro,

Take a look at

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236941623_Building_a_knowledge_society_one_individual_at_a_time_a_multi-level_review

Working Paper Building a knowledge society one individual at a time: a mul...

Dear Pedro, 

"We all know there is only one scientific truth", this statement is wrong. Scientists know that there are no absolute truth there is only a certain probability that a certain phenomenon exists. 

Thank you Béatrice you are right, relativism must not be forgotten...and my wording leans toward absolutism.

However, to be certain of a certain probability is also to value scientific truthfulness, isn’t it?

Good science is evidence based and truthful. I’m not questioning truth itself... or the probability of truth.

I’m questioning how do you value this probability? how do you choose one probability over the other? What roles things such as morals, ethics and aesthetics play in the choices you embrace as scientist? 

I dream of a world where truth shapes science and what scientists think, rather than a world where science is shaped by what scientists think is true.

Dear Pedro, 

For some God's existens is the ultimate truth for others not

Who is God? Let’s keep him out of this thread please...LOL...

Béatrice, ultimately our belief systems will have an impact in how we define and make science.

Here is an article that sheds some light on the interactions between truth and belief systems.

I hope you enjoy this read as much as I did :)

Ivo, thank you so much for such complete answer.

The paper on research education about beliefs and knowledge is an excellent entry in the subject, as you say it is not complete from and historical point of view. And yes it mixes both concepts (knowledge and belief).

When you say knowledge and belief are completely diverse cognitive systems... they are interconnected? Right? They cannot be separated, can they?

Knowledge leads to belief (or disbelief)... and sometimes belief will lead you to knowledge (but not all the time, most of the times to fake knowledge).

Maybe we are getting to close to an answer to my initial question. Your scientific truth may fluctuate upon the quality of the knowledge and the beliefs that you behold.

Somehow that is not enough. Maybe we must add that scientific truth must obey to scientific processes. But yet, the moral and ethic question can have such impact that even if you respect scientific processes you could be doing the wrong thing.