True or False

I managed to get back to uni and Philosophy studies last night for the first time in many many weeks. I have to say that these moments are a light in an otherwise dark world for me at the moment. It always gives me great pleasure to spend just a few hours thinking about thinking.

Last night's lecture on apriori justification was fascinating and got me thinking. The discussion was around whether apriori knowledge is defeasible. It is somewhat like science. If a theory in science is not falsifiable then it is considered not to be a valid theory. Same for apriori knowledge. If it not possible to falsify a piece of apriori belief then where does it stand in the scheme of things epistemically?

So here is the problem. Lets look at a scientific theory. If it is only a good theory if it is falsifiable then we have a paradox. The falsification argument is used against the creationists who relentlessly adjust their theory to accommodate all evidence against it. Fair enough.

But if a theory is falsifiable (and it being defeasible is a condition of it being a valid theory) then we have an issue. For it to be possible to be defeasible requires a scenario which would actually make it false. Be clear here, I am not saying we know what that is, just that there must something out there that makes it false. See where this is going? Yep, if there is something out there that would make this false then it is already false. I.e. by nature of it being a theory, if making it a worthwhile theory includes the rule it must be falsifiable then it is already false. We may not know what makes it false but it is nevertheless false.

So by definition all theories are wrong. If they are not then it is only because they are not defeasible and therefore not theories that deserve the claim to scientific credibility.