RE: On the Success of Scientific Theories
March 25, 2015 at 5:20 am
(This post was last modified: March 25, 2015 at 5:22 am by FallentoReason.)
(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.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle