Lots of interesting things to read about from various scientists here. One notable non-scientist in the menagerie is actor Alan Alda.

*The idea that things are either true or false should possibly take a rest... For me, the trouble with truth is that not only is the notion of eternal, universal truth highly questionable, but simple, local truths are subject to refinement as well... I wonder, and this is just a modest proposal, if scientific truth should be identified in a way that acknowledges that it's something we know and understand* **for now – and in a certain way**.

Alda's one of those *artsy* people, who want everything to be *fuzzy*. And I'm also kind of a platonist. So it's easy for me to dismiss this in knee-jerk fashion. Except that I sort of agree.

Because, while I like exactness and binary propositions, I'm also a computer scientist, and we all recognize that logic is a game of symbols, organized into proofs, otherwise known (sometimes) as algorithms. And we know that a theorem is not as important or fundamental as its proofs.

This perspective actually accords well with the idea that we ought to prefer thinking about why scientific facts are provable -- namely, because of empirical evidence linked by deduction -- to the idea that they are true. Because, proof-theoretically, "true" just means "provable". Add in the notion of constructivity, and now the algorithmic nature of proofs starts to remind one of the *procedure* of scientific experimentation.

(The analogy is rough. Science is about refutation rather than proof, but maybe you can come up with a kind of coalgebraic notion of refutation which is algorithmic in the same way that constructive proofs are.)