You mis-understand what a theory is. It is NOT a prediction. It is an attempt to describe reality.
Newtonian gravity makes accurate predictions in almost all scenarios, but it is a completely false description of reality. There is NO force of gravity (as per our current best understanding) like the theory states. General relativity makes even better predictions, and is currently our best theory of gravity, but again we know it to be completely false as it assumes a classical world when the world is quantum in reality (again as per our current best understanding).
While the increases of predictive ability from Newtonian gravity -> General Relativity -> Some future Unified theory of gravity are only the smallest of decimals, it does not stop the first two theories from being completely false descriptions of reality (and likely the 3rd one once it is discovered).
Of course "All theories are false" is false, but it is not a contradiction to admit so. The statement conforms with our best understanding of how we create knowledge. It is your philosophy of Science that is sorely lacking.
Yes that is fair - explain is a better word to use than describe. Theories attempt to explain reality, and in particular to explain the seen in terms of the unseen.
Regarding completely false vs partly false, I'd say it depends how much of the content of the original explanation is maintained. If we take the gravity example, Newtonian gravity states something like:
1) Every particle in the universe attracts every other particle with a force
2) directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance
3) instantaneously
Whilst general relativity states something like:
1) Objects curve spacetime
2) According to the field equations
3) At the speed of light
So I'd say there is nothing from general relativity that is borrowed from Newtonian gravity, in terms of the explanation for what is actually going on. So it has been completely replaced.
There are some occasions of incremental changes where some of the original theory is maintained, but in general good scientific theories are hard to vary, so as soon as some issue with it is observed, the whole explanation falls apart and cannot be adapted to cover the exception.
The statement "there is no force of gravity" is conceptually true in modern physics (General Relativity) but practically misleading in daily life. While Einstein described gravity as the curvature of spacetime rather than a Newtonian "force," it remains a measurable, tangible, and essential interaction that causes weight and dictates motion.
Scientific Perspective (General Relativity): Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity posits that gravity is not a traditional force pulling objects. Instead, mass warps the fabric of space-time, and objects follow the straightest possible path (geodesics) through this curved, 4D, spacetime, which appears as a curved path in 3D space. In this view, falling objects are navigating curved space-time, not being pulled.
Practical Perspective (Newtonian/Daily Life): The "force" of gravity is a tangible phenomenon experienced daily, such as weight, tidal forces, and objects falling to the ground. For most engineering and everyday applications, treating gravity as a force (F = mg) is perfectly accurate.
Contextual Nuance: The statement can be misinterpreted as "gravity doesn't exist" or "there is no gravity in space," which are false. Gravity exists everywhere and is a crucial, non-fictitious interaction holding the universe together.
In summary, gravity is not a "force" in the classical, fundamental interaction sense (like electromagnetism), but it is not an illusion—it is a physical manifestation of spacetime curvature.
While the Higgs boson and the hypothetical graviton are both bosons (particles that can transmit forces or fields), their roles in physics are quite different, and neither is the primary "carrier" of gravity in the way photons carry electromagnetic force.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard that phrase used except when followed by “but some are useful.” Which seems like it’s getting at the same thing you’re saying here, no?
Theories should not be judged solely by whether they are 100% true. What matters is whether they are useful. A theory that is true 99% of the time is likely highly useful, partIcularly if it can explain why the 1% violates the general rule.
I never heard this statement - and I am a scientist. The common statement is "All models are wrong" as another commenter noted. And even this is just taken as a quip. A better statement expressing the underlying sentiment would be "All models and all theories are incomplete, as they generalize some aspects of the world." And that is mostly fine to anyone working in science. It is trivially true. Models and theories apply a grid onto the world, they encode reality into limited frameworks that simplify for the sake of prediction. Their grids have limited dimensions they capture, and their predictions are limited to these dimensions, and positions within these dimensions. As all grids do. Models and theories must simplify because again, trivially, a complete model of the world would need to be as complex as the world itself, and perfectly self-referential - it would need to perfectly model itself too, not just the rest of the world. And that can't be done in the same way as there can be no set of all sets, more generally, Godel's incompleteness and even more generally, Tarski's undefinability of "truth". So, all theories, all models of reality, are incomplete. That is trivially true, necessary, and, ironically, proven.
The statement is “all models are wrong, but some are useful” - George EP Box. The Newtonian model is 100% false as an explanation for reality (gravity is not a force). But, it’s useful as a model because it can make predictions with a high degree of accuracy.
Models distort, simplify, or misrepresent reality to make calculations manageable. The focus on pedantics like decimal place is a language game and doesn’t actually deal with the substance of the critique.
Brilliant takedown of this lazy nihilism. The decimal places argument is especially sharp becuase it exposes how casual these declarations are. I run into this alot in tech circles where people throw around 'all models are wrong' like it somehow excuses bad analysis. Precision matters, context matters.
Just because issues are often revealed in precision doesn’t mean that they are issues of precision. For example your claim of ‘true’ distance being 1.8464864864463557967783 miles has problems. One of which is your presumed sub-atomic fidelity of Kabob Corner. It reveals issues of definition in your statement. What exactly is and isn’t Kabob Corner? Does it only exist at the property line?
That sounds nit-picky and annoying but that’s because the original statement is perfectly functional and not worth critiquing.
But ‘Functional’ and ‘true’ just aren’t the same thing.
There’s a dimension in which this is particularly enforced - average group behaviors. The obsessive, neurotic tendencies of academics to bury potentially inconvenient findings that MAY be weaponized against groups is partly a cause of this nihilism in recent decades. The insistence on consensus over truth contributes to this problem.
Rather than false vs true, I think of a theory as the best explanation we have, as of today, for some set of phenomena. A theory may survive the test of time, as additional observation and analysis are applied, or it may need to be improved or even scrapped. Its truth is aspirational, not absolute.
Does that beg the question what we mean by "best?" Well, yes. It can only be called a theory if logical or observable contradictions can be explained through restrictions on its scope of applicability. Conservation of mass, for example, is [thought to be] valid for particle velocity much less than the speed of light.
The statement is clearly 'way too inclusive to be true, as a matter of logic.
As stated, without limitation it includes, and therefore denies the truth of, all theories *about theories*--such as itself!
Since it contradicts itself it must be false.
Also as a matter of logic, at least one theory not about theories must be true. As famously demonstrated by des Cartes, I exist. And by the law of identity, I am I, alternatively stated I am who I am (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה), as God once quipped.
Interesting. As a physicist I instead say "all theories are approximations". I will admit to a compulsive need to clarify this distinction when I hear someone say "all theories are false".
Can you provide some examples (maybe like 5 examples?) of some scientist saying "All Theories Are False"? I did a quick google search for the term, and I only saw two results: This substack you've posted here, and https://www.econlib.org/archives/2009/09/all_theories_ar.html which apparently was also written by you and makes a similar claim that a lot of scientists say that phrase.
I think you might be confusing this with the phrase "All Models Are False, (But Some Are Useful)", which is sort of tautologically true, because a model, by definition, is a simplification of the thing it's modelling.
As far as physicists are concerned, Newtonian theories are GENUINELY false (even if they can work as approximations within common ranges that they are used), and Einstein's advances put them on the path to truth (they don't share the Kuhnian take that progress is illusory because theories aren't comparable). Because Einstein's relativity is inconsistent with quantum mechanics, physicists also believe that the Standard Model must also be false and a "true" theory which reconciles them is yet to be discovered.
To help understand the distinction, it might be helpful to compare how mathematicians use truth & falsehood. It is a commonplace that if you start with a contradiction as an assumption, you can use it to prove ANY mathematical result. Physicists want to build on reliable scientific laws, so if they can't apply it over huge ranges, it no longer counts as true and the actual true theory must be general enough to always apply.
You mis-understand what a theory is. It is NOT a prediction. It is an attempt to describe reality.
Newtonian gravity makes accurate predictions in almost all scenarios, but it is a completely false description of reality. There is NO force of gravity (as per our current best understanding) like the theory states. General relativity makes even better predictions, and is currently our best theory of gravity, but again we know it to be completely false as it assumes a classical world when the world is quantum in reality (again as per our current best understanding).
While the increases of predictive ability from Newtonian gravity -> General Relativity -> Some future Unified theory of gravity are only the smallest of decimals, it does not stop the first two theories from being completely false descriptions of reality (and likely the 3rd one once it is discovered).
Of course "All theories are false" is false, but it is not a contradiction to admit so. The statement conforms with our best understanding of how we create knowledge. It is your philosophy of Science that is sorely lacking.
"The restaurant is two miles away" sounds like an attempt to describe reality to me...
Explanation, maybe, rather than description?
How do you distinguish completely false from partly false?
Yes that is fair - explain is a better word to use than describe. Theories attempt to explain reality, and in particular to explain the seen in terms of the unseen.
Regarding completely false vs partly false, I'd say it depends how much of the content of the original explanation is maintained. If we take the gravity example, Newtonian gravity states something like:
1) Every particle in the universe attracts every other particle with a force
2) directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance
3) instantaneously
Whilst general relativity states something like:
1) Objects curve spacetime
2) According to the field equations
3) At the speed of light
So I'd say there is nothing from general relativity that is borrowed from Newtonian gravity, in terms of the explanation for what is actually going on. So it has been completely replaced.
There are some occasions of incremental changes where some of the original theory is maintained, but in general good scientific theories are hard to vary, so as soon as some issue with it is observed, the whole explanation falls apart and cannot be adapted to cover the exception.
The statement "there is no force of gravity" is conceptually true in modern physics (General Relativity) but practically misleading in daily life. While Einstein described gravity as the curvature of spacetime rather than a Newtonian "force," it remains a measurable, tangible, and essential interaction that causes weight and dictates motion.
Scientific Perspective (General Relativity): Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity posits that gravity is not a traditional force pulling objects. Instead, mass warps the fabric of space-time, and objects follow the straightest possible path (geodesics) through this curved, 4D, spacetime, which appears as a curved path in 3D space. In this view, falling objects are navigating curved space-time, not being pulled.
Practical Perspective (Newtonian/Daily Life): The "force" of gravity is a tangible phenomenon experienced daily, such as weight, tidal forces, and objects falling to the ground. For most engineering and everyday applications, treating gravity as a force (F = mg) is perfectly accurate.
Contextual Nuance: The statement can be misinterpreted as "gravity doesn't exist" or "there is no gravity in space," which are false. Gravity exists everywhere and is a crucial, non-fictitious interaction holding the universe together.
In summary, gravity is not a "force" in the classical, fundamental interaction sense (like electromagnetism), but it is not an illusion—it is a physical manifestation of spacetime curvature.
Aren't there also Higgs bosons and gravitons that are supposed to transmit it?
While the Higgs boson and the hypothetical graviton are both bosons (particles that can transmit forces or fields), their roles in physics are quite different, and neither is the primary "carrier" of gravity in the way photons carry electromagnetic force.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard that phrase used except when followed by “but some are useful.” Which seems like it’s getting at the same thing you’re saying here, no?
Theories should not be judged solely by whether they are 100% true. What matters is whether they are useful. A theory that is true 99% of the time is likely highly useful, partIcularly if it can explain why the 1% violates the general rule.
I never heard this statement - and I am a scientist. The common statement is "All models are wrong" as another commenter noted. And even this is just taken as a quip. A better statement expressing the underlying sentiment would be "All models and all theories are incomplete, as they generalize some aspects of the world." And that is mostly fine to anyone working in science. It is trivially true. Models and theories apply a grid onto the world, they encode reality into limited frameworks that simplify for the sake of prediction. Their grids have limited dimensions they capture, and their predictions are limited to these dimensions, and positions within these dimensions. As all grids do. Models and theories must simplify because again, trivially, a complete model of the world would need to be as complex as the world itself, and perfectly self-referential - it would need to perfectly model itself too, not just the rest of the world. And that can't be done in the same way as there can be no set of all sets, more generally, Godel's incompleteness and even more generally, Tarski's undefinability of "truth". So, all theories, all models of reality, are incomplete. That is trivially true, necessary, and, ironically, proven.
The statement is “all models are wrong, but some are useful” - George EP Box. The Newtonian model is 100% false as an explanation for reality (gravity is not a force). But, it’s useful as a model because it can make predictions with a high degree of accuracy.
Models distort, simplify, or misrepresent reality to make calculations manageable. The focus on pedantics like decimal place is a language game and doesn’t actually deal with the substance of the critique.
Love most of your other work tho!
Brilliant takedown of this lazy nihilism. The decimal places argument is especially sharp becuase it exposes how casual these declarations are. I run into this alot in tech circles where people throw around 'all models are wrong' like it somehow excuses bad analysis. Precision matters, context matters.
Your blatant error is that you believe language is math. That's ridiculous.
Of course you say that because you believe all theories are also simplifiable to math. Which a more ridiculous rationalistic nonsense.
Arguing in absolutes seems like a bad bet in general. You just need 1 event or example to reject the premise. Better to go with “most”.
Just because issues are often revealed in precision doesn’t mean that they are issues of precision. For example your claim of ‘true’ distance being 1.8464864864463557967783 miles has problems. One of which is your presumed sub-atomic fidelity of Kabob Corner. It reveals issues of definition in your statement. What exactly is and isn’t Kabob Corner? Does it only exist at the property line?
That sounds nit-picky and annoying but that’s because the original statement is perfectly functional and not worth critiquing.
But ‘Functional’ and ‘true’ just aren’t the same thing.
There’s a dimension in which this is particularly enforced - average group behaviors. The obsessive, neurotic tendencies of academics to bury potentially inconvenient findings that MAY be weaponized against groups is partly a cause of this nihilism in recent decades. The insistence on consensus over truth contributes to this problem.
Rather than false vs true, I think of a theory as the best explanation we have, as of today, for some set of phenomena. A theory may survive the test of time, as additional observation and analysis are applied, or it may need to be improved or even scrapped. Its truth is aspirational, not absolute.
Does that beg the question what we mean by "best?" Well, yes. It can only be called a theory if logical or observable contradictions can be explained through restrictions on its scope of applicability. Conservation of mass, for example, is [thought to be] valid for particle velocity much less than the speed of light.
The statement is clearly 'way too inclusive to be true, as a matter of logic.
As stated, without limitation it includes, and therefore denies the truth of, all theories *about theories*--such as itself!
Since it contradicts itself it must be false.
Also as a matter of logic, at least one theory not about theories must be true. As famously demonstrated by des Cartes, I exist. And by the law of identity, I am I, alternatively stated I am who I am (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה), as God once quipped.
Interesting. As a physicist I instead say "all theories are approximations". I will admit to a compulsive need to clarify this distinction when I hear someone say "all theories are false".
You are taking this statement too literally.
Can you provide some examples (maybe like 5 examples?) of some scientist saying "All Theories Are False"? I did a quick google search for the term, and I only saw two results: This substack you've posted here, and https://www.econlib.org/archives/2009/09/all_theories_ar.html which apparently was also written by you and makes a similar claim that a lot of scientists say that phrase.
I think you might be confusing this with the phrase "All Models Are False, (But Some Are Useful)", which is sort of tautologically true, because a model, by definition, is a simplification of the thing it's modelling.
As far as physicists are concerned, Newtonian theories are GENUINELY false (even if they can work as approximations within common ranges that they are used), and Einstein's advances put them on the path to truth (they don't share the Kuhnian take that progress is illusory because theories aren't comparable). Because Einstein's relativity is inconsistent with quantum mechanics, physicists also believe that the Standard Model must also be false and a "true" theory which reconciles them is yet to be discovered.
To help understand the distinction, it might be helpful to compare how mathematicians use truth & falsehood. It is a commonplace that if you start with a contradiction as an assumption, you can use it to prove ANY mathematical result. Physicists want to build on reliable scientific laws, so if they can't apply it over huge ranges, it no longer counts as true and the actual true theory must be general enough to always apply.