Odds & Ends
Theory X entails observation O (if X is true O must be observed)
O is not observed
Therefore, theory X is false
Not quite. To prove Theory X, O must be observed. O is not observed. Therefore Theory X is
not proven.
The designated observer [a graduate student with a new boyfriend] may have fallen asleep. The observation may have been made, but mistaken for an artifact. The observation may not have been recorded. The observation may have been falsified. Or Theory X may be false.
Thus: we can't be 100% right, but we can find 100 ways to be wrong.
This also holds true in the courtroom....
...where facets of two (out of the six which may have relevance to the case) alternative truths are
highlighted, no whole truth is ever presented: nobody expects it; nobody could handle it.
NoShips » November 20th, 2016, 7:16 am wrote:.... facts are indeed true, but facts are just "small truths" if you will --
Truth (with a capital T), on their construal, is the "bigger picture";
There is no such thing as The Truth. That's hyperbole for a belief or conviction. Any statement that contains capitalized Truth is automatically suspect. Unless you mean all of reality, of which we can only ever glimpse little fragments and make provisional descriptions. But we
can compile a fairly comprehensive database of facts regarding our own mortal condition. We can be reasonably - not absolutely - certain of the truth regarding specific delimited subject matters.
perhaps an explanatory theory constructed to accommodate and unify a set of facts which were previously not suspected to be related.
Perhaps, though in most cases, there is no need to go very far afield, nor to construct much of a theory. The number of facts required to produce a true answer depends on the scope of the question.
What's the price of a kilo of Yukon Gold potatoes? ($1.98)
How did whales evolve? (Well, see this layer of shale near the bottom of the cliff? We have recovered eight partial fossils from layers of sediment of the same age, and....)
Indeed, the very possibility of a relevant truth depends on the nature of the question:
Are there any more cookies in that jar? (Sorry, no.)
What's the meaning of life? (I dunno.)
The truth value of any statement relates to the question it answers. "navy blue" is true if you asked about the colour of an RN officer's uniform, untrue if you asked about the colour of my eyes, irrelevant if you asked where I was last thursday night - though it could still be true, if I spent the evening at a seaman's club by that name.
Not an unreasonable response, at least at first blush, although some, maybe most, philosophers are bound to question any fact-theory dichotomy.
I suppose that's their job....
the (putative) fact of evolution
Yes, it happened. (There is enough data to stop doubting.)
and the theory of evolution.
Here's
how we think it happened. (There is ongoing investigation of the details.)
The "Professor God did it" hypothesis is not disproven by science; it is merely disregarded by science.
Show us how to study, measure, observe, calculate and experiment on that hypothesis, and we'll try it. If we come up with usable data, we'll put it back into science. (But, please, no more epicycles!)