What Do You Think About The Words, "If It Is a Theory, It Has To Be Wrong?"?

Question

The logician Saul Kripke makes this passing remark in Naming and Necessity. What do you think about his comment? Are all human theories inevitably wrong?

Hi, I did not expect this many answers this rapidly. To be fair to Kripke, he has philosophical theories in mind. I should have said that earlier, but I was quoting him from memory.

Jeffrey,

Kripke does say that all "philosophical" theories are wrong. I will check Naming and Necessity again to make sure. I should have the reference tracked down tonight.

Dear Jeffrey,

Here is the exact quote from Kripke:

"Let me state then what the cluster concept theory of names is. (It really is a nice theory. The only defect I think it has is probably common to all philosophical theories. It's wrong. You may suspect me of proposing another theory in its place; but I hope not, because I'm sure it's wrong too if it is a theory."

See Naming and Necessity, page 64.

Answer 1

Perhaps I missed something, but I cannot find that Kripke makes this comment anywhere in "Naming and Necessity." His point in the lecture is to show that, according to his view, the so-called "description theory" of names is wrong. He is not, however, trying to show that all theories are wrong.

Of the other answers you have gotten to this question, at least up to the time I began my answer, only WellTravelled's is valid. The rest are either meaningless or simply wrong.

For instance, Zap's comment that "every 'Law' was a theory at some point" is just wrong. No theory ever becomes a law, except in the sense of Natural Law, as WellTravelled mentions. Laws are derived from theories. For instance, the Law of Gravity, i.e., that two bodies with mass exert on each other a force of attraction proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, is derived from Newton's Theory of Gravity, i.e., that an apple falling from a tree and a planet circling the Sun do so because of the same unseen force, which Newton called "gravity."

Jacques's statement that "theories are educated conclusions that are supported (not proven) by fact" is also wrong. A theory, at least in its scientific meaning, is not something less than a fact. A theory is an attempt to explain a fact, or usually a set of facts. Referring to my previous paragraph, it is a fact that if I hold my pencil out at arm's length and let go of it, it will fall to the floor. That is an observation, a fact. Why it does that is called the Theory of Gravity.

Similarly, sophist's statement that "[theories] are not wrong until proven so. In which case, it is no longer a theory." is also wrong. No theory, in the scientific sense, becomes a fact. If a theory stands up to testing and peer review, is able to make accurate predictions, and is generally considered the best model of reality, it is considered a proven theory. But, it is still a theory. Such proven theories include the aforementioned Theory of Gravity, Germ Theory, Relativity Theory, Quantum Theory, and of course the much-maligned Theory of Evolution. We send rockets to the Moon, produce vaccines and medicines, build computers, and manipulate genes all based on these theories. But even though we know these theories are reliable models of reality, they are still "only" theories.

The rest of the answers, at least the ones that do more than just make a comment, like niko's, are pretty much in the same vein.

Answer 2

No. That statement is incorrect, and shows a misunderstanding of how "theory" is used in science.

A scientist proposes an explanation for some phenomenon by postulating a hypothesis. Experiments and observations are then done to see if there is evidence to support the hypothesis. If evidence for it is found, the hypothesis is then considered a theory, and further experiements and observations and conducted to gather more evidence in support of or against the theory. Once a theory has been firmly established by a preponderance of evidence, it can still be called a theory -- or sometimes it is elevated to the status of "natural law." But in science, a "theory" is something for which there is already considerable evidence of that theory being a correct description of some phenomenon. If there's no evidence in favor of it being correct, it never makes it to "theory."

Answer 3

A theory is by it's nature something which is unproved. It may have some evidence to back it up, but it cannot be proved ultimately.

Further, a theory, by it's nature, is limited in it's scope, and it's limitations are by definition, aritificial. . And therefore it cannot encompass everything which might touch upon it with relevance or even with revolutionary results (such as might overthrow it entirely).

I think of Johannes Kepler, the great mathetmatician who arrive at the laws of planetary motion and so many other things he never had time to think them all through (including, pre-Newton, gravity). In the framework of his time period he was required to cast horoscopes. He had no faith in them, because it was impossible to know enough for them to be accurate. He cast them anyway as it was part of his job.

But the point of his thinking is that if the stars do define things which affect people, we can only know a part of that. We would have to be God to know enough to know how in their entirety the stars affected our lives.

And this brings me to Kripke. I agree with him, for the reason stated above. We can never know enough about anything to be sure that we have everything we need to know about how any theory works, to what it extent it works, or to what extent the effects we understand are true or only partial truth or (as is often the case) on an entirely wrong path altogether.

Therefore, I agree with him.

Hey Ho, Maggie!

Answer 4

Complete bullshit.


Prime example:
Gravity is a theory.

Theories are basically facts, just there is a element of unsureness about it. In science, you cannot prove something to be true, only things to be false. Theories are the former.

Just my opinion, but i feel that from Kripke to give such a blanket statement that dismisses all theories is complete rubbish, and needs evaluating, the crazy fool.

Answer 5

Because human theory is derived of human error. Facts can only be proven through "rejecting the null". It does not have to be wrong, but will never be proven correct.

Answer 6

Uneducated nonsense. Scientific theories are defined as explanations for observations. There is no reason that they should necessarily be wrong.

Answer 7

Not all theories are wrong. Theories are educated conclusions that are supported (not proven) by fact.

Answer 8

i think you could allign it up with the quote (or law i should say) 'innocent until proven guilty'. if you do that, it means if it is a theory, it has to be proved wrong before you can dismiss it.

Answer 9

Its idiotic since every "Law" was a theory at some point.

Answer 10

They are not wrong until proven so. In which case, it is no longer a theory.