Theories on Theories
The question as to whether scientific theories can be shown to be true or false is a complex one. The answer depends on one's interpretation of the meaning of theory. To what does it refer? Is its role to reveal the nature of reality, or is it merely a human construct? In which case what do we mean by truth? Is it an accurate description of reality, or does it simply refer to a successful theory that produces accurate predictions? Duhem attacks this problem from a very strict non-metaphysical standpoint. As a result he shows that we can know nothing about material reality, and indeed very little about the validity of our own theories. In the end it appears that the theoretical framework within which scientists work is more a matter of convention than anything else.In order to determine whether scientific theory can or cannot be proven true we must first understand what Duhem means by scientific theory. He introduces two possibilities as to the nature of a physical (which we can equate to 'scientific') theory (Brittanica Encyclopidia Online). The first being that it is an explanation of the reality lying behind a group of experimental laws (those that are empirically determined). The second is that a physical theory is simply a
3) The mathematical development of the theory. This is the combination of the principles expressed using mathematical analysis. Duhem defined such a theory as a system of mathematical propositions which are deduced from a small number of principles, which in turn aim to represent as simply, as completely, and as exactly as possible a set of experimental laws (Curd and Cover pp. 257-279). A perfect physical theory, as described, aims to explain the reality of the material things whose properties we perceive. Therefore, we are inexorably lead to the conclusion that in order for a physical theory to provide an explanation we must first understand the nature of material reality. This of course assumes that there is such a reality, distinct from appearances. However, this has now become a metaphysical question (the answer cannot come from empirical evidence since this deals only in sensation). So we are presented with a problem: if the value of a physical theory depends on the metaphysical system adopted then it is impossible for such a theory to achieve universal acceptance. There are many schools of metaphysics (Aristotelian, Newtonian, atomistic and Cartesian) and they all hold different ideas as to the nature of reality (Encarta Electronic Encyclopida). They are all at odds because each can find fault with properties of matter assumed by others. If their metaphysical beliefs are in conflict then by definition so would be the physical theories they adopt.
Some common words found in the essay are:
Francis Bacon, Curd Cover, Encyclopidia Online, Electronic Encyclopida, Brittanica Online, , physical theory, Aristotelian Newtonian, theoretical framework, Online Encyclopedia, natural classification, 'crucial experiment', experimental laws, nature reality, scientific theory, CD-ROM Encarta, crucial experiment, Encarta Electronic, shown true false, encarta electronic, falsity theory, theoretical system duhem, conclusion physical theory, idea 'crucial experiment', determine absolute truth,
Approximate Word count = 1890
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
