From: Dan Fabulich (dfabulich@warpmail.net)
Date: Sun Sep 01 2002 - 13:05:28 MDT
Charles Hixson wrote:
> This doesn't actually work. Our approach is simpler, but doesn't
> disagree with his approach where they both make predictions. And it's
> in the testable predictions* that the truth** of the approach lays.
> The mental models used to make the physical predictions are just that,
> models. There is no truth in them. There is usefulness, or not.
[...]
> ** Here I am adopting a rather Popperian meaning for truth, but theories of
> the physical universe don't seem to have any other meaning.
Actually, I think you're adopting a rather pragmatist theory of truth.
Popper would have disagreed with your claim that there is no truth value
to these models/theories, but would have instead claimed that we have
extremely limited access to their truth value: we can only access it
through experiment and falsification.
Anyway, to answer your point that "there is no truth in them" directly:
that's one way of looking at it. It's not really my way of looking at it,
though. It's almost certainly not our culture's way of looking at it.
Look around and you'll see that truth/falsehood is used more like this:
Some scientific theories are *right* and some are *wrong*.
Now, maybe speakers mean "useless" when using the word "wrong", but I
don't really think so. (After all, they DID use emphasis.)
> We could probably show him that our approach was more useful. And he
> could properly retort "Will it hold off the inquisition?" In his world,
> his approach was more useful. Bruno was burned alive for ignoring this
> point. Galileo was confined under house arrest (well, he was already
> quite old, and the fame may have made up for the eventual sentence. I
> doubt that it made up for the fear before the sentence was passed).
> OTOH, Galileo was blatantly obnoxious, and lampooned the Pope in a quite
> disrespectful way. And Bruno may have had political motivations behind
> his sentence. Still, it was wise to walk carefully, and follow the path
> of Copernicus.
Yeah, but now we know that the Pope was wrong (using "wrong" in the
ordinary modern way) and that those revolutionary astronomers were right
(again, using "right" in the way *we* do, now).
Do you think we'd be more rational/objective about our scientific theories
if we stopped using "truth" words about them? If so, then you've captured
an interesting perspective; a language which teaches us something about
ourselves. Do you think we should have that language instead of our
current language? What do you think we'd have to gain? What do you think
we'd lose in terms of scientific passion if scientists never pursued The
Truth but only pursued utility?
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:37 MST