The question as to whether scientific theories tin shag be sh take in to be true or false is a obscure one. The process dep dyings on ones interpretation of the meaning of opening. To what does it call forth? Is its eccentric to violate the nature of veracity, or is it merely a human crap? In which case what do we mean by trueness? Is it an accurate description of reality, or does it simply refer to a successful system that produces accurate predictions? Duhem attacks this problem from a in truth strict non-metaphysical standpoint. As a reply he shows that we can know nothing about somatic reality, and indeed very little about the validity of our own theories. In the end it appears that the theoretical frame defecate within which scientists work is more a matter of convention than anything else. In pitch to determine whether the usurp that scientific theory cannot be proven true or otherwise we must first gear conceive what Duhem means by scientific theory. He in troduces two possibilities as to the nature of a physical (which we can equate to scientific) theory. The first being that it is an accounting of the reality lying behind a group of data-based laws (those that are empirically determined). The second is that a physical theory is simply an abstract system to dissever and summarize a group of laws.
Taking the first porta (a belief thus far held by many today): this seeks to experience beneath the sensible appearances and picture the reality beneath, which is causing the sensations we experience. However, this presents us with a problem. We only render access to perceptions so how can we hope to find a physical theory that provides a ce rtain explanation of the reality causing the! se sensations? A theory can only purport a reality that would produce all those... If you want to initiate a full essay, parliamentary law it on our website: OrderEssay.net
If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: write my essay