Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!cogsci.berkeley.edu!kube
From: kube@cogsci.berkeley.edu.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Truth of theories (was: Re: Simplicity and truth)
Message-ID: <20371@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sun, 30-Aug-87 19:34:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.20371
Posted: Sun Aug 30 19:34:36 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 31-Aug-87 03:43:57 EDT
References: <20297@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <20304@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <3800@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: kube@cogsci.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Paul Kube)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 46
Keywords: truth Ockham's razor
Summary: my mailer spells names better than I do

In article <3800@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> myers@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Bob Myers) writes:
>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.  
>Interesting. I don't agree. Firstly, I think a theory is more than "a"
>statement. 

Look, statements can be pretty long; but if you prefer to think of a theory
as a set of statements instead, that's fine.  The theory is true iff each
of the statements it makes are true.  Or what are you getting at here?
I'm not saying that every statement is a theory, only the converse.

>Now, is plate tectonics "true"? Are things the way plate tectonics say
>they should be? Certainly not exactly. 
>And this is certainly not specific to geology. Is Newtonian Physics
>true? Things are not the way it says they are, under some conditions.

If Newtonian Physics says "F=ma, period" then it's false, since there
are circumstances in which F!=ma.  If it says "F=ma to a real good
approximation at reasonable masses and velocities, etc."  then it's
not false on that account.  It can be nontrivial to figure out what
statements are being made; in this case I guess Newton, though not
20th century college physics instructors who teach Newton, should be
held to "F=ma, period".  I'd think it's uncharitable to interpret any
theory as making more precise statements than its framers intend.

>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.

Let me reply to one ad hominem with another.  I think that people
respond neurotically to the mention of "truth" because of experiences
of oppression at the hands of institutions or individuals who,
in some sociopolitical context, have their position of power because
of a supposed priveleged access to truth.  This, however, is
not a problem with the concept of truth, but with cultural attitudes
towards it.  

What we should learn from having tried to do theology, philosophy, and 
science is some idea of how hard it is to get nearer the truth, and
what kind of open-ended project of cooperation and criticism it seems
to take.

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