Scientific models are unambiguisly known for their predictive success.
Argument against truth
1. Their (models') predictive success is a strong indicator of reliability, not a guarantee of final explanation
2. If of all the interaction facts you come about you know the ultimate cause consider def of capturing truth, science fails
3. Scientific models are mostly characterized for their reliability. Their predictive success is a strong indicator of reliability, not a guarantee of final explanation
Arguments pro truth
1. Predictive success implies a connection to truth, otherwise success would be an accident
2. Reliability (of models) is a trait of truth i.e truth is about consistency of and inescapability of realizations
Hello! I 've been doing into truth for a long time. I have to say that the question is too simple to answer anything. There are many philosophers who do not believe in such thing as truth and either do I. Although, I wrote a book on the topic (and collected views on the question) if you are interested here you are the link: https://lk.molochnoe.ru/ebs/notes/1417/download
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology