In article ,
Richard Alexander wrote:
(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.

String theories typically aren't testable due to technological and
resource limitations. But they do make definite predictions that differ
from those of other theories, predictions of observable things that could
in principle be tested.


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.

Can you repeat SN1987A?

There are a lot of experiments or observations that can't or shouldn't be
repeated, but we can still make some science out of it by repeating those
we can, and understanding the multitude in a theoretical context.
--
"When fighting with sharpened Bronze, or harder Metals from the Heavens,
it is Wise to kick thy Opponent, be he a Chaldean or a man of Uruk, in his
Man Sack, that thou mayst defeat him more handily than by Arms. So sayeth
INNAMURUTUSHIMMILODEK, who hath slain threescore Ammelekites."