I think that a better way of evaluating the truth content of a proposition is by its efficacy in helping one correctly predict outcomes under various circumstances. This eliminates many of the semantic difficulties of using words like
proof and
correct.
Does an idea allow us to do this? If so, it's a keeper and is added to our fund of knowledge. No need to worry about absolute truth, ultimate truth, objective truth, right or wrong - just utility.
As
@Polymath257 recently noted elsewhere, Newtons formulation of gravity has been superceeded by Einsteins, which is necessary for certain applications in physics and its implementation in technology and engineering, but for most applicationns, including sending probes into space, Newton's formulation still works. It allow us to accurately predict that if a probe is sent in such and such a direction for such and such time, that it will encounter Pluto.
Consider these ideas
:
- Empirical adequacy - A theory is empirically adequate, roughly, if all of what it says about observable aspects of the world (past, present, and future) can be confirmed
- Fallibilism - the principle that propositions concerning empirical knowledge can be accepted even though they cannot be proved with certainty.
- Correspondence definition of truth - a statement is true to the extent that it conforms to / corresponds with / accurately reflects (objective) reality.
- Instrumentalism - belief that statements or theories may be used as tools for useful prediction without reference to their possible truth or falsity. Peirce and other pragmatists defended an instrumentalist account of modern science.
So, to answer your question, I wouldn't use the words true or false to describe Einstein's theories. I would say that they work, and are thus useful and should be implemented where they can help.
I didn't see where you ever acknowledged the difference between asserting that something is untrue and withholding judgment for lack of sufficient evidence to believe, the latter of which is both rational and a good description of one of the best ideas man has ever had - rational skepticism, or the choice to believe nothing based on mere assertion, but to believe only that which is supported by evidence, and even then, only to a degree commensurate with the quality and quantity of available evidence, and always tentatively and with a willingness to adjust one's degree of belief (probable, very probable, as close to certain as is possible, etc.) as new relevant evidence surfaces making that belief less or more likely to be correct.
One might suggest that the principle to which rational skeptics adhere is itself faith-based. To that claim, I would counter that I have ample evidence that the principle is sound based on its results. Rational skepticism applied to the physical realm converted alchemy and astrology to chemistry and astronomy, transforming two useless and sterile faith-based pursuits into two extremely successful and productive sciences. That's evidence that the principle is valid.
Also, rational skepticism applied to daily life allowed us to reject the received wisdom of the ancients such as the Christian principle of the divine right of kings ("Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2, and "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient" - Titus 3:1) and invent the modern, liberal, democratic state with guaranteed personal rights - a huge leap in progress from subjecthood to citizenship, from serf to free man.
This is also evidence that this principle is sound, as is the progress made in moral theory from "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." - Ephesians 6:5 and "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord." - Ephesians 5:22 to abolition and equal rights and protections for women. In every case, we are substituting the product of our reasoning ability for ideas that were offered as fact and the final word - a great stride forward
And for completeness sake, rational skepticism applied to the subject of gods advises us to remain agnostic rather that to believe or disbelieve in gods, that is reject god claims and claims of no gods until evidence justifying one of those positions surfaces.Thus, a rational skeptic should be an agnostic atheist
Incidentally, I notice that you switched from
unbelief to
disbelief. I propose that the words be assigned different meanings rather than considering them synonyms and having them both mean both being unconvinced (not believing) and convinced that an idea is wrong (believing not). I propose that the former be called unbelief, and the latter disbelief. Two ideas, two words - why conflate the ideas under two different terms?
Faith cannot possibly be a path to truth. By faith, either of two mutually exclusive ideas can be believed to be true when at least one is not.
And as I wrote above, rational skepticism is one of man's greatest intellectual achievements ever, up there with ideas like justice and using language. Skepticism frees us from the bondage of superstition and received "wisdom."
