🚀 go-pugleaf

Paul Keube ( :-)  ) writes:

>A theory, scientific or otherwise, is a statement about how things
>are.  Like any statement, it is true iff things are the way it says
>they are.  That's all there is to it...  What relative likelihood of
>truth of theories amounts to then is just a matter of how you want to
>do probability theory.

Interesting. I don't agree. Firstly, I think a theory is more than "a"
statement. Continental Drift is not a theory, but Plate Tectonics is.

Now, is plate tectonics "true"? Are things the way plate tectonics say
they should be? Certainly not exactly. Plate tectonics is a model of
geological processes, necessarily much simplified from what "actually"
is going on.

And this is certainly not specific to geology. Is Newtonian Physics
true? Things are not the way it says they are, under some conditions.
I would say that is where the model breaks down. But if I'm concerned
about whether or not it is "true", I would say that *no* scientific
theory is true, because they are always simplifications of what is
observed. Didn't you mention that there is a *lot* of information
thrown away in the F=ma mapping?

I think people try to introduce the idea of "truth" in science because
they are used to talking about such things in philosophy and religion.
The concept of "Laws of Nature" is part of this. "Laws of Nature" date
back to the Enlightenment, and aren't much favored today.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Myers                                         myers@tybalt.caltech.edu
			 {rutgers,amdahl}!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!myers