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?
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 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.
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.
The mere possibility of making an error of reasoning in verifying one's belief in a theoretical generalization is not proof of its falsehood. After all, it is also possible that one has *not* made such errors in one's reasoning, in which case one's belief in the theory is both true and justified and therefore counts as a part of one's knowledge of reality.
Furthermore, the falsification of a theory is potentially just as error-prone as the verification of theory is. Even when an error in a prior verification is discovered subsequently, that only nullifies the prior justification for believing in the generalization and hence its status as knowledge, not whether the generalization is actually true or not. To actually falsify a theoretical generalization requires the same reasoning processes that verification does, and is hence liable to the same potential for error. Indeed, subsequent evidence might remedy the defect in the prior justification, thus restoring the status of the theory as knowledge.
The key point here is that certain mental states are caused by the nature of reality itself, as is our innate ability to process these mental states to construct mental models of reality and to purposefully act within reality using these models. The status of a particular belief as being true or false is independent of the thought process one used to arrive at the belief, but the nature of the thought process employed does matter. It is only by grounding our thought processes in what is caused in our minds involuntarily by the nature of reality itself independently of one's will (instead of making purely arbitrary presuppositions the basis for one's thought processes) that we can arrive at any knowledge of reality; beliefs that are devoid of rational justification don't count as knowledge of reality (even when they happen to be true) because they are constructed as models of one's fantasies, not as models of reality.
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?
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 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.
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.
The mere possibility of making an error of reasoning in verifying one's belief in a theoretical generalization is not proof of its falsehood. After all, it is also possible that one has *not* made such errors in one's reasoning, in which case one's belief in the theory is both true and justified and therefore counts as a part of one's knowledge of reality.
Furthermore, the falsification of a theory is potentially just as error-prone as the verification of theory is. Even when an error in a prior verification is discovered subsequently, that only nullifies the prior justification for believing in the generalization and hence its status as knowledge, not whether the generalization is actually true or not. To actually falsify a theoretical generalization requires the same reasoning processes that verification does, and is hence liable to the same potential for error. Indeed, subsequent evidence might remedy the defect in the prior justification, thus restoring the status of the theory as knowledge.
The key point here is that certain mental states are caused by the nature of reality itself, as is our innate ability to process these mental states to construct mental models of reality and to purposefully act within reality using these models. The status of a particular belief as being true or false is independent of the thought process one used to arrive at the belief, but the nature of the thought process employed does matter. It is only by grounding our thought processes in what is caused in our minds involuntarily by the nature of reality itself independently of one's will (instead of making purely arbitrary presuppositions the basis for one's thought processes) that we can arrive at any knowledge of reality; beliefs that are devoid of rational justification don't count as knowledge of reality (even when they happen to be true) because they are constructed as models of one's fantasies, not as models of reality.
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”.