Inspiration for my essay is the following quotes from
Mahbubul Karim Sohel's post "Truth is Relative":
(Link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MuktoChinta/message/3026)
[Martin Gorst writes in his The Guardian article, "Even if the speed
of light has changed, we are not about to see the downfall of an
absolute truth. Despite the assertions of some teachers, scientific
theories are not absolute truths; they are just descriptions of the
world, some of which fit better than others. Einstein's theories
fitted the evidence available at the time. If new evidence arrives
which proves him wrong, then scientists just get on with the job of
devising a new theory." ]

Well, indeed "scientific truths are not absolute truths", thats the
central theme of scientific method itself, which challenges the very
claim of absoluteness, the hallmarks of dogmas of all varieties.
truth from a scientific standpoint is "tentative", rather than
relative, in other words the opposite of "absolute" is "tentative"
(i.e changeable/revisable). Truth cannot be relative. Then Santa Claus,
Allah, Jehova,Vishnu,astrology, dianetics all have to be equal truths.
Accepting the equality of all of them literally would have led to
total anarchy. They are not accepted as truths, but rather as
subjective beliefs by humanity by consensus. Now having clarified
that the question next arises whether scientific truths are
prescriptions or descriptions(As Martin Gorst contends). To be
consistent if scientific theories are not absolute truths,then
neither is Martin Gorst's theory(or assertion) that scientific truths
are descriptions of world(reality). Rather the consensus of the
scientific majority is that scientific truth is a prescription of
nature. Reputed scientists like Roger Penrose, Heinz Pagels (Who
called scientific laws "cosmic code"), are all what is known as
platonists(or realists), believing that scientific laws are not just
mental maps to describe reality, rather deep prescriptions which
dictate how reality should be constructed. let me go into that in
elaborate detail and throw in my original thoughts on this issue.

Only a minority of scientists and some philosophers knowm as
"constructivists" (Contrast with "realists" or platonists who believe
the opposite) do believe that. They believe that laws are "
descriptions" rather than "prescription" of reality. In other words
the laws are nothing but human constructs to map observations of
reality into certain invented patterns. So the reality is not
described by an apriori prescription, but observations of reality are
fit into a prescribed pattern a posteriori by human mind. Realists
believe that an unchanging, apriori law exists (May not yet be known)
that will describe ALL observations (current and future). But
according to the contsructivists any prescription is ad hoc, it will
always be subject to change to accomodate new observations.
Revisions of scientific theory to explain a new observation in this
view is nothing but changing the prescription of the pattern so that
the new observation as well as the existing ones fit into the revised
pattern. An examle may help to illustrate this. Suppose we model our
reality as consisting of observations which are just numbers. Let our
reality consist of observation of three numbers 1, 3, 9. We may
describe this observation by a prescription 2*n^2+1, where "*"
denotes multiplication and "^" denotes "raised to the power of", thus
the above expression means 2 mulitipied by n raised to 2 plus 1,
where n = 0,1,2... This is our law of the nature(reality). Suppose
also that we can accurately evaluate our law upto n=10, and that for
higher n, our computatioin has a margin of error of 1% (rounded to
the nearest integer). So our computation of 2*11^2+1 can be any
number within 241-245. So if we observe any number 241-245 we cannot
be sure if the observation agrees with the law or that the law is
inaccurate, but being within the margin, we can assume that the
observation agrees with our law and more importantly we cannot say
that our observation contradicts the law. Now as long as 1, 3 and 9
are all the only observed numbers, we are satisfied that 2* n^2+1
is the correct description, "law". This law now also predicts an
observation of 19 (for n=3). If 19 is indeed observed then it will
serve as a further evidence in support of the independent reality of
the law. Now suppose instead we observe a new number 27, so now the
reality to us consist of observations 1, 3, 9, 27. Then obviously all
our observations do not map into 2*n^2+1 anymore. But if we revise
the law as 3^n (n=0,1 , 2, 3, ..), then it does correctly describe
all the numbers. That is what revision of scientific theory is about.
But if instead of 27 we had observed 37, it may not be possible to
revise the prescription to explain the new number, there may not
exist any law at all! (i.e no revision possible). The new observation
will remain an unexplained one and would contradict our existing law.
So we can never be sure that an unchanging eternal prescription
will explain any future observation (number), even if all the current
observations are explained by it. The more number of observations we
have fitting the prescription, the more confident we can be about the
reality of the law, but never certain. Now suppose that indeed we
have observed the all the numbers 1,3,9,19, 51,73,99,129, 163, 201
(for n=0 to 10). So we are confident about our law. Now suppose we
also observe the number 244. We try to fit it by using n=11 which
gives us with our error margin of 1% the range 241-245. So we
conclude that our new observation does not at least contradict our
law, but either fits into the law within an error margin or may be
our law needs some revision in case it does not give 244 after the
error margin is eliminated through improved computing ability, we
don't know which is true at this time. Suppose that error margin is
indeed eliminated and we get 243. So 244 is indeed an unexplained
observation that contradicts our law. Then someone clever comes up
with a revision 2*n^2+1+n/10 , where "/" means integer division, so
n/10 = 0 for n=0-9, 1 for n=10-19, etc. Now 244 can be explained by
this revised law. The same can be said about 452 and so on. But until
we discovered this revision or improved our error margin, 244 can be
considered explained or unexplained within our law, but certainly
not contradicting it. This is not like 37, which certainly
contradicts our law.

Now let us tie it all to our real world. All the observations in
our real world are like 1,3,9...163, 201, 244, 452.. where most do
fit into the laws of nature 2*n^2+1 , some do within a margin of
error or at least do not contradict it. Galaxy formation, creation
of life, consciousness etc are like 244, 452.. We cannot explain
them fully by our existing natural law , but they may potentially
be explained in future, by either refining or computing ability, or
revising our current laws (Which is the case for 244 and 452 as we
saw). Miracles, paranormal phenomena, if they exist at all, will
be like the number 37. Paranormal is defined as unverified reports
of observing 37 (most likely once), but some, but not others,
unlike all the other numbers which have been observed by all
and repeatedly. We will calli it a miracle if 37 is indeed observed
repeatedly and verified to be true. So miracle is a documented
violation of natural law. But even then we cannot rule out a
future revision of the law or totally new law that may explain
the miracle as well as the other numbers. We cannot say by logic
that the existence of 37 proves that a hypothetical entity G exists,
who created 37 as a sign to let us know of its existence! One can
say that as a pure faith.
So we conclude that we cannot be absolutely sure whether the
Physical laws are a priori prescriptions or a posteriori descriptions
of reality. But due to the fact that an impressive number of
observations do fit into the prescriptions of the scientific laws, it
gives us a high degree of confidence in its reality. Some of those
observations that agree with predictions (Like making a nuclear
bomb using the prescriptions of physics) are quite impressive and
it is diffcicult to view it as a coinicidental agreement between
prediction and observation. In fact it is seems so unlikely that
physicist Paul Davies made the following strong (not his wont)
remark in his Templeton Award lecture:
(http://www.origins.org/ftissues/ft9508/davies.html)
"It has become fashionable in some circles to argue that science
is ultimately a sham, that we scientists read order into nature,
not out of nature, and that the laws of physics are our laws, not
nature's. I believe this is arrant nonsense. "...
"The laws of physics, I submit, really exist in the world out there,
and the job of the scientist is to uncover them, not invent them"

Roger Penrose is also a realist, as mentuioned earlier. He believes that
we discovered mandelbrot sets ( z = z*z + c), not invented it.

Is there any way at all for us to ever settle this uncertainty
about the existence of an unchanging true "law"? There is one way
I can think of. If and when human mind (consciousness) can be
completely explained by scientific laws (Current or with future
extensions) so that consciousness can be predicted or explained by
that law, so that it becomes a necessary consequence of the law,
then we can claim that scientific laws indeed have a real basis,
scientific laws would then have an existence independent of human
mind. Why? Simply because if mind is created by Scientific laws
then mind cannot create the same scientific laws. The creation
cannot create its creator!, which is a logical absurdity (seems to me).

- Aparthib