Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!awex From: awex@wxlvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Truth in Philosophy of Science Message-ID: <214@wxlvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 10-Jan-84 19:27:00 EST Article-I.D.: wxlvax.214 Posted: Tue Jan 10 19:27:00 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 11-Jan-84 05:34:18 EST References: mit-eddi.1137 Lines: 33 {Yes, I know this ought to go in net.philosophy, but y'all are debating about what is true here, so I thought I'd post it here.} There are two things to think about when talking about truth. One is the distinction between *a priori* truth and *a posteriori* truth. Things that are *a priori* true, are true "by definition." Things that are *a posteriori* true are true in virtue of what we have discovered. The second dimension is the distiction between *analytic* truth and *synthetic* truth. Something is analytically true if it can be rigorously proven (within a given system, as Godel showed). Something is synthetically true if it is supported by an acceptable majority of the experimental evidence. Now, things like mathematics and logic are *a priori analytically* true. For example, 2 + 2 = 4 is true by virtue of the menaings of the symbols '2','4','+', and '='. Similarly, True and False is False, by the rules of logic. On the other hand, all of science is *a posteriori synthetically* true. Which is to say that it's not possible to PROVE any scientific conclusion. All we can say is that all evidence so far supports it. Therefore, greg, it is incorrect to lump science and mathematics together in talking about truth. One interesting note is that geometry is the only thing that is *a posterioir analytically* true, in that it is ture by virtue of the way that the world if, but we can still construct proofs about it. This is the case for both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries; the only difference is what you assume the universe to be like. --Alan Wexelblat (the vanishing philosopher) ...decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!awex