14-07-2003, 06:48 PM
|
|
|
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Richard Alexander wrote:
Al Klein wrote in message
...
[snip]
The definition of "scientific" doesn't include "testable".
I think we should at least settle this question; Can an hypothesis,
theory, principle, claim or statement be scientific if it is not
testable?
It needn't be immediately testable with current technology and the
resources humans are willing to put into it. Those are just practical
considerations.
I agree; a statement need only have the potential to be tested to be
testable. This consideration can make it a bit tricky to say what is
or isn't testable--or, more accurately, to inform certain idiots that
their suggestion is wrong, for reasons that they can't or won't
possibly comprehend or accept.
But, among other qualities, a theory must say something definite about
nature, must make concrete predictions of observables that will be either
right or wrong. Theory aids the understanding, but science is
fundamentally empirical.
An experiment must be repeatable to be scientific.
|