Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!cogsci.berkeley.edu!kube
From: kube@cogsci.berkeley.edu (Paul Kube)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Truth of theories (was: Re: Simplicity and truth)
Message-ID: <20304@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Wed, 26-Aug-87 12:34:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.20304
Posted: Wed Aug 26 12:34:12 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Aug-87 05:48:32 EDT
References: <20297@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: kube@cogsci.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Paul Kube)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 21
Keywords: truth Ockham's razor

Bob Meyers writes:

>Are we still talking about scientific theories?  What does it mean to
>say a scientific theory is more likely to be true?

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.

Typically, a scientific theory will make claims about both observable
and unobservable entities.  It's harder to evaluate a theory's claim
about the unobservable ones; usually one does something like taking
confirmation of predictions in carefully designed experiments as
evidence for the unobservables.  It's hardest when two theories agree
on all the observables and disagree on the unobservables; how to
decide now which theory is more likely to be true?  This, of course,
is where Ockham's razor is supposed to come in.

--Paul kube@berkeley.edu, ...!ucbvax!kube