@everyone:

The end goal here is to explain why it is that science is successful. The topic of truth is more of a thing embedded within the end goal we're trying to achieve.

(March 25, 2015 at 4:34 am)FallentoReason Wrote: @everyone:

The end goal here is to explain why it is that science is successful. The topic of truth is more of a thing embedded within the end goal we're trying to achieve.

Right, I went off in a bit of a tangent, but one which as you say, is closely related.

(March 25, 2015 at 4:35 am)Alex K Wrote:

(March 25, 2015 at 4:34 am)FallentoReason Wrote: @everyone:

The end goal here is to explain why it is that science is successful. The topic of truth is more of a thing embedded within the end goal we're trying to achieve.

Right, I went off in a bit of a tangent, but one which as you say, is closely related.

Absolutely. The No Miracles argument proposes that science is successful because our theories are true. But the problem is that saying they're successful because they're true is essentially saying the predictions they make are true (hence the success) because they are true. That's not much of an explanation thus far!

I slightly disagree or am confused. Aren't you mixing the prediction being true and the theory being true in that last one?

The great advantage (well, one of the many) that science has over religion is that science is provisionally true Any and all of our best supported and most predicative theories can be amended or - what is less likely - discarded in the face of new facts or theories that more accurately explain the world around us. Scientists and other sensible people are almost always delighted to find a new way of looking at things, or better explanations for observed phenomena.

Religion, on the other foot, makes claims to ultimate truth. Religious notions (I hesitate to call them 'theories') may change, but the change is often laborious and painful - in a very literal sense. In the event that a religious view does change, you never see religionists jumping up and down saying, 'Huzzah! I learned something new, so I'll discard that old idea I had.' Religions tend to be calcified in their official line to the point where it is almost always anathema to even look for better answers or explanations.

This isn't to say that religiously-minded individuals haven't made contributions to science - it is clear that they have. But this is almost always done in spite religious dogma, not because of it. And religious innovators in the sciences almost always get themselves into trouble. Actually scientists who contribute to human knowledge tend to get prizes.

Says a lot, dunnit?

Boru

So it could be phrased this way: If a prediction made by a scientific theory comes true, does the scientific theory inherit the state of being true? Why not, I say. If the prediction ends up being false, then the theory is wrong. I don't think the line of logic is reiterating itself, because its dealing with two different bodies, the theory and the prediction, and putting them up against "true". "Our best scientific theories are successful" is self-evident. Why are they successful? Because the definition of a successful theory is that it makes predictions that comes true, and we can see that the predictions come true.

(March 25, 2015 at 4:41 am)Alex K Wrote: I slightly disagree or am confused. Aren't you mixing the prediction being true and the theory being true in that last one?

It's a very subtle problem. Let me see if I can explain it better:

for a theory to be true, it *must* be the case that the predictions are true. But then that means that answering the question "why is science successful" (i.e. why are the predictions true) with "because the theory is true" is simply assuming the thing we're trying to explain.

---

(March 25, 2015 at 4:59 am)Exian Wrote: So it could be phrased this way: If a prediction made by a scientific theory comes true, does the scientific theory inherit the state of being true? Why not, I say. If the prediction ends up being false, then the theory is wrong. I don't think the line of logic is reiterating itself, because its dealing with two different bodies, the theory and the prediction, and putting them up against "true". "Our best scientific theories are successful" is self-evident. Why are they successful? Because the definition of a successful theory is that it makes predictions that comes true, and we can see that the predictions come true.

So here you're essentially using *P2 from the OP. You're saying that theories are successful because they're empirically adequate. The problem is that it's possible to have a theory that is empirically adequate, yet clearly false.

Other than something like hallucinations or something like that, how can something be empirically adequate and clearly false? By empirically adequate, I assume we mean repeatable results that satisfy a prediction.

(March 25, 2015 at 5:20 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(March 25, 2015 at 4:59 am)Exian Wrote: So it could be phrased this way: If a prediction made by a scientific theory comes true, does the scientific theory inherit the state of being true? Why not, I say. If the prediction ends up being false, then the theory is wrong. I don't think the line of logic is reiterating itself, because its dealing with two different bodies, the theory and the prediction, and putting them up against "true". "Our best scientific theories are successful" is self-evident. Why are they successful? Because the definition of a successful theory is that it makes predictions that comes true, and we can see that the predictions come true.

So here you're essentially using *P2 from the OP. You're saying that theories are successful because they're empirically adequate. The problem is that it's possible to have a theory that is empirically adequate, yet clearly false.

Like... very probably every single one science has ever come up with, or ever will?

(March 25, 2015 at 4:34 am)FallentoReason Wrote: @everyone:

The end goal here is to explain why it is that science is successful. The topic of truth is more of a thing embedded within the end goal we're trying to achieve.

Then how about the word 'demonstrable' instead of 'true'? That's the bottom line is science, isn't it: the demonstrability of the conclusions of theoretical calculations.