On the Success of Scientific Theories

[Angrboda]

I notice that you haven't defined what it means for a theory to be false. I imagine theories that are empirically adequate may form a hierarchy of lesser and lesser demonstrability, but I don't know what it would mean to say a theory is false. If lack of accuracy defines falsehood, then all (past and present) theories end up being false. Perhaps this points to a deeper problem in that the binary values true and false tend to gut anything we can say about actual theories because accuracy of predictions (demonstration) is a gradated property, not a binary one. Perhaps that points to the No Miracles argument being phrased in terms of "more successful theories.... than less successful theories," and then the litmus of success is demonstrability as Ben suggests.