Why is scientific testing or rigor necessary when it doesn't affect the truth value of a thing?

[Night FM]

My argument is simple. Testing or rigor is a method of ensuring accuracy. However the truth value of something remains the same regardless of whether it is testable or not.

As an example, if we accept that the modern theory of gravity is true, it still would have been true hundreds of years ago, even if a formal method of verifying it was not currently available. Newton's hypothesis would have been correct even prior to it being verified. (How he correctly arrived at his hypothesis prior to it having become pre-existing knowledge is a mystery, but it still would have been correct).

This is not an attempt to say that testing or rigor has no worth. I'm merely pointing out that the truth value of something remains the same irrespective of the testing or rigor. Likewise, if a person, for example, solely believed that the modern theory of gravity is true because it had been priorly tested, this would run into absurdisms - such as, if one had been born in the day and age of Newton, they would have believed that his hypothesis was wrong if it hadn't been priorly tested or couldn't be tested at the time (meaning there would be no new discoveries or advancement of scientific knowledge at all, since no new hypotheses would be testable or have been tested at the time they were first arrived at).

Edited August 28 by Night FM

[exchemist]

19 minutes ago, Night FM said:

My argument is simple. Testing or rigor is a method of ensuring accuracy. However the truth value of something remains the same regardless of whether it is testable or not.

As an example, if we accept that the modern theory of gravity is true, it still would have been true hundreds of years ago, even if a formal method of verifying it was not currently available. Newton's hypothesis would have been correct even prior to it being verified. (How he correctly arrived at his hypothesis prior to it having become pre-existing knowledge is a mystery, but it still would have been correct).

This is not an attempt to say that testing or rigor has no worth. I'm merely pointing out that the truth value of something remains the same irrespective of the testing or rigor. Likewise, if a person, for example, solely believed that the modern theory of gravity is true because it had been priorly tested, this would run into absurdisms - such as, if one had been born in the day and age of Newton, they would have believed that his hypothesis was wrong if it hadn't been priorly tested or couldn't be tested at the time (meaning there would be no new discoveries or advancement of scientific knowledge at all, since no new hypotheses would be testable or have been tested at the time they were first arrived at).

Scientific theories are models that are only provisionally true, as history shows. 

[Night FM]

6 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Scientific theories are models that are only provisionally true, as history shows. 

Right, I was just using a scenario in which, if we accept that "the theory of gravity is true", then it would have been true regardless of whether rigor had currently been applied or been appliable to it.

I'm aware that contemporary theories of gravity are subject to change, in practice.

Edited August 28 by Night FM

[exchemist]

24 minutes ago, Night FM said:

Right, I was just using a scenario in which, if we accept that "the theory of gravity is true", then it would have been true regardless of whether rigor had currently been applied or been appliable to it.

I'm aware that contemporary theories of gravity are subject to change, in practice.

What I’m suggesting is that “true” is a risky term to apply to theories in science, at least in the strict, absolute,  logical sense in which it tends to be used in philosophy. The old saying that “the map is not the territory” is the way I tend to treat scientific theories, at least in principle, though there are some that almost achieved the status of fact, e.g. the existence of molecules. 

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Night FM said:

My argument is simple. Testing or rigor is a method of ensuring accuracy. However the truth value of something remains the same regardless of whether it is testable or not.

As an example, if we accept that the modern theory of gravity is true, it still would have been true hundreds of years ago, even if a formal method of verifying it was not currently available. Newton's hypothesis would have been correct even prior to it being verified. (How he correctly arrived at his hypothesis prior to it having become pre-existing knowledge is a mystery, but it still would have been correct).

This is not an attempt to say that testing or rigor has no worth. I'm merely pointing out that the truth value of something remains the same irrespective of the testing or rigor. Likewise, if a person, for example, solely believed that the modern theory of gravity is true because it had been priorly tested, this would run into absurdisms - such as, if one had been born in the day and age of Newton, they would have believed that his hypothesis was wrong if it hadn't been priorly tested or couldn't be tested at the time (meaning there would be no new discoveries or advancement of scientific knowledge at all, since no new hypotheses would be testable or have been tested at the time they were first arrived at).

 

This is a fair question.

But, as always, the wider world is more complicated than our simplifications.

 

Even Philosophers have to agree what theey are talking about before they can have a useful discussion about 'Truth'.

Let us start  into it by agreeing the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.  What do you mean by these terms and also accuracy ?

 

Also I think gravity is far to weighty an example ans as yet, far from a finished hypothesis.

So let me offer some simpler ones, and if you must invoke Newton, then how about the wave/particle duality of light ?

Back along Newton's corpuscular hypothesis held sway as 'the truth'.  Then  Huygens proposed the wave hypothesis.

Both hypotheses predicted the same result, for every effect.

Then Young showed that the deflection from the normal at a boundary was in the opposite sense for the two hypotheses.

Ahaa a test.

Young's analysis proved correct upon observation and 'the truth' shifted to the wave camp.

 

Hey brother/sister, my clock has stopped working.

Perhaps the battery is flat (low voltage).

Well it worked when I first put it in so the voltage must be correct.

Yeah but the voltages changes with time, and as you use the battery.

 

So what is 'the truth ' with regards to the battery voltage ?

 

 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

Right, I was just using a scenario in which, if we accept that "the theory of gravity is true", then it would have been true regardless of whether rigor had currently been applied or been appliable to it.

We wouldn’t have known it to be true without rigor, and that has consequences. Theories have predictive value; wrong theories make wrong predictions, and no theory means no predictions.

Can’t land on the moon without Newton.