All Current Scientific Theories are False??

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is claimed by philosophical realists that scientific facts [as in scientific realism] represent reality that is mind-independent and science is getting closer and closer to the final ultimate reality.
Moral facts deniers claimed that moral elements cannot be facts which can be verified and justified as facts by science.
But what the realists claimed as fact, i.e. scientific facts within scientific realism are false, thus they do not have the credibility to refute facts that are moral related.

Here is an interesting argument re The Pessimistic Induction that counter the realists' view, i.e.,
All Current Scientific Theories are False.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... /#PessIndu

1. If one considers the history of scientific theories in any given discipline, what one typically finds is a regular turnover of older theories in favor of newer ones, as scientific knowledge develops.

2. From the point of view of the present, most past theories must be considered false; indeed, this will be true from the point of view of most times.

3. Therefore, by enumerative induction (that is, generalizing from these cases), surely theories at any given time will ultimately be replaced and regarded as false from some future perspective.

4. Thus, current [scientific] theories are also false.

There are defenses to the above.

Nevertheless with the above reservations, we cannot insist that science is moving closer and closer to the real-Truth, i.e. a mind-independent reality as claimed by philosophical realist.
P-realists claim there is a mind-independent [independent of human conditions] reality and things regardless whether there are humans or not.

I challenge those who insist there is a reality that is uncorrelated [generally claimed as mind-independent] of the human conditions, to prove their positive claim.

Discuss?? Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

How is the OP Related to Morality?
It is claimed by philosophical realists that scientific facts [as in scientific realism] represent reality that is mind-independent and science is getting closer and closer to the final ultimate reality.

Moral facts deniers claimed that moral elements cannot be facts which can be verified and justified as facts by science.

But what the realists claimed as fact, i.e. scientific facts within scientific realism are false, thus they do not have the credibility to refute facts that are moral related.

Re the OP, if all scientific theories are false yet most credible & objective
then, scientific theories are "less false" than those from other FSKs.

Even within the scientific model, there are varying degree of falseness, e.g. scientific facts or natural sciences [physical things, planets, and the like] would be "less false" than those from the social sciences and scientific speculations.

One of the other FSKs beside the scientific FSK is the morality-proper FSK.
Re OP perspective all moral theories are also false but have degrees of credibility and objectivity.
So, the question is what is the degree of falseness, credibility and objectivity of the morality-proper FSK compared to that of the scientific FSK taken as the standard.

The above is another approach to justify that Morality is Objective as conditioned upon a human-based morality-proper FSK.
_____________________

[FlashDangerpants]

Nothing to do with ethics. Wrong forum.

[Gary Childress]

It is claimed by philosophical realists that scientific facts represent reality that is mind-independent and science is getting closer and closer to the final ultimate reality.

Here is an interesting argument re The Pessimistic Induction that counter the above, i.e.,
All Current Scientific Theories are False.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... /#PessIndu

1. If one considers the history of scientific theories in any given discipline, what one typically finds is a regular turnover of older theories in favor of newer ones, as scientific knowledge develops.

2. From the point of view of the present, most past theories must be considered false; indeed, this will be true from the point of view of most times.

3. Therefore, by enumerative induction (that is, generalizing from these cases), surely theories at any given time will ultimately be replaced and regarded as false from some future perspective.

4. Thus, current [scientific] theories are also false.

There are defenses to the above.

Nevertheless with the above reservations, we cannot insist that science is moving closer and closer to the real-Truth, i.e. a mind-independent reality as claimed by philosophical realist.
P-realists claim there is a mind-independent [independent of human conditions] reality and things regardless whether there are humans or not.

I challenge those who insist there is a reality that is uncorrelated [generally claimed as mind-independent] of the human conditions, to prove their positive claim.

Discuss?? Views?

I would think it depends upon the individual case. The idea that the planets revolve around the sun has been around since the Greeks at least and seems pretty solid fundamentally. Theoretical science OTOH, quantum theory, string theory, relativity, etc., will maybe always be not quite there. Our minds may not be capable of thinking in the terms necessary to grasp everything. Perhaps we are condemned to be slaves to our imperfect minds.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I would think it depends upon the individual case. The idea that the planets revolve around the sun has been around since the Greeks at least and seems pretty solid fundamentally. Theoretical science OTOH, quantum theory, string theory, relativity, etc., will maybe always be not quite there. Our minds may not be capable of thinking in the terms necessary to grasp everything. Perhaps we are condemned to be slaves to our imperfect minds.

Based on 'The Pessimistic Induction' or enumerative induction, the OP's argument "All Current Scientific Theories are False" is valid and sound.

Popper had argued all so-called scientific facts, truths, knowledge are at best 'polished conjectures'.
This is very true because all scientific facts start off as an abducted hypothesis and is polished with empirical evidence up to a point where there is consensus within the relevant scientific peers.
No scientist will claim immutability nor certainty for their conclusion but leave room that their conclusion ought to be rejected if new evidence proved otherwise; this the reality with science since it first emerged.

The above stance of humility has pragmatic values to ensure that science will replace God the omniscient.

Despite the above limitations and weaknesses, the scientific FSK [model of knowledge] is still the most credible and objective within all other FSKs [at their best].

Re the OP, if all scientific theories are false yet most credible & objective
then, scientific theories are "less false" than those from other FSKs.

Even within the scientific model, there are varying degree of falseness, e.g. scientific facts or natural sciences [physical things, planets, and the like] would be "less false" than those from the social sciences and scientific speculations.

Generally, we do not view scientific theories from the perspective of ' degrees of falseness' even when this is logical and rational.
However, this perspective is critical to be brought into consideration in the case of scientism and scientific realism.

Scientific Realism is where realists claim there are absolute mind-independent things that are awaiting scientists to discover.
The scientific model do not deal with absolute mind-independent things but it is merely a polisher of hypotheses.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is claimed by philosophical realists that scientific facts [as in scientific realism] represent reality that is mind-independent and science is getting closer and closer to the final ultimate reality.

Moral facts deniers claimed that moral elements cannot be facts which can be verified and justified as facts by science.

But what the realists claimed as fact, i.e. scientific facts within scientific realism are false, thus they do not have the credibility to refute facts that are moral related.

Re the OP, if all scientific theories are false yet most credible & objective
then, scientific theories are "less false" than those from other FSKs.

Even within the scientific model, there are varying degree of falseness, e.g. scientific facts or natural sciences [physical things, planets, and the like] would be "less false" than those from the social sciences and scientific speculations.

One of the other FSKs beside the scientific FSK is the morality-proper FSK.
Re OP perspective all moral theories are also false but have degrees of credibility and objectivity.
So, the question is what is the degree of falseness, credibility and objectivity of the morality-proper FSK compared to that of the scientific FSK taken as the standard.

The above is another approach to justify that Morality is Objective as conditioned upon a human-based morality-proper FSK.

[Atla]

It is claimed by philosophical realists that scientific facts [as in scientific realism] represent reality that is mind-independent and science is getting closer and closer to the final ultimate reality.

And that's why science is called objective. Whereas morality doesn't seem to be getting closer to the ultimate moral reality, because there doesn't seem to be one, that's why morality is called subjective. Once you're eight you'll see.

[Skepdick]

Nothing to do with ethics. Wrong forum.

If it's got to do with distinguishing Truth from Falsehood it's always about ethics.

ethics
/ˈɛθɪks/
noun
1.
moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

Seems to fit the definition