Article  Theories are never true, they are only more or less useful (philosophy of science)

https://iai.tv/articles/theories-are-nev..._auid=2020

INTRO: We think our theories about reality – whether in physics, philosophy, or psychology – should aspire to be faithful descriptions of how reality actually is. But philosopher of science Manuel Delaflor makes the case that this aspiration is incredibly dangerous. Instead of thinking our theories map onto an underlying reality, Delaflor asks us to stop worshipping our models, even though we cannot stop modelling any more than we can stop breathing. Evaluating our theories by what they can do, and not by what they claim to be, will make us far more productive and happier... (MORE - details)

As Rorty points out, truth is a property of sentences. Why do we limit ourselves to speaking and writing what aspires to be true--to correspond to some event or state that has already happened? Is this not redundant? Has it not already happened once? Let us rather rise to the task of articulating what is not yet true. To not just report what is, but to bring forth truths for the first time unfettered by the dictates of the past. But there is no word for this. Not just original. Not just creative. More like a making true what has yet to be true. A speaking that carries within itself a whole redefinition of "being true" itself. Language's highest calling is making conceivable what was before inconceivable. It makes possible new things to be known.

"Philosophy is not the reflection of a pre-existing truth, but, like art, the act of bringing truth into being."---M Merleau-Ponty

(2 hours ago)Magical Realist Wrote: To bring forth truths for the first time unfettered by the dictates of the past.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/gIHSCtPB26s

9_9