There are plenty of people (including scholars, but not generally STEM scholars) who’ll argue that fiction can contain truth. I suspect this comes down to a motte-and-bailey distinction of “truth” and evidence that one can update upon, with “model”, a framework for compressing information and making predictions.
I personally think that both sides are correct—there is value in changing/reinforcing models based on well-stated and believable narratives. And it’s not truth—one should not update specific propositional beliefs on it.
IMO, the worst of both is fiction that’s not labeled as such. A memoir that claims to be true but fudges actual facts will tempt one into making incorrect updates, and when discovered, casts doubt on the value of the narrative and modeling input.
There are plenty of people (including scholars, but not generally STEM scholars) who’ll argue that fiction can contain truth. I suspect this comes down to a motte-and-bailey distinction of “truth” and evidence that one can update upon, with “model”, a framework for compressing information and making predictions.
I personally think that both sides are correct—there is value in changing/reinforcing models based on well-stated and believable narratives. And it’s not truth—one should not update specific propositional beliefs on it.
IMO, the worst of both is fiction that’s not labeled as such. A memoir that claims to be true but fudges actual facts will tempt one into making incorrect updates, and when discovered, casts doubt on the value of the narrative and modeling input.