g does not exclude the possibility of other meanings and interpretations. Margolis's opponents agree somewhat with these statements because they believe that a work of art exists separately from the intent of the author and that authorial meaning is not necessarily the true meaning of a work. They differ from Margolis because they believe that another true meaning does exist. To distinguish his viewpoint from theirs, Margolis concludes that one cannot differentiate between what is inside or outside of a particular cultural entity or "work". The opponents claim that the true interpretation of a work comes from what is actually in the work, that the work itself is autonomous and that its meaning comes only from what is within the work, whether that is authorial meaning or not. Margolis claims that one cannot separate descriptions of what is in the cultural work, from interpretations that reach something out of the work.
             Margolis explains that his theory of cultural relativism including the interpretation of cultural entities can and does extend further than simply aesthetic criticism and into the natural sciences as well. Today we would not ask the question "How did the earth come into existence?" We would ask, "How could the earth have come into existence?" We use the facts we know today to make reasonable judgments about the origins of planet earth, however because we do not have perfect information we cannot look through the "eye of God" as such. We cannot possibly come to a definite conclusion about its origin. If we had evidence that absolutely disproved a certain theory of the origin of the planet, though, we could say with certainty that the earth did not come into existence in a specific way. This difference highlights an important distinction between truth and falsity. Falsity is the opposite of both truth and plausibility. We can make plausible statements concerning the origin of earth, that i...