Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

On 14 Jul 2003 10:12:42 -0700, (Richard Alexander)
wrote:


Many things don't fit anything except
statistics/probability. There you have to go by the weight of the
evidence. The notion of 'testable' is not a binary yes or no answer. It
may be testable with a certain percent confidence level or have a
certain correlation coefficient. On the other hand, you could plot
bubble gum sales as a function of meteors seen in the southern
hemisphere and might find a pretty good correlation...... :)

The term "testable" means that any random person who correctly
performs the experiment would get similar (generally within 10%)

there is no such universal guideline about reproducibility. In
physics, they argue about things that can only be distinguihed out at
several decimal places.



results, that is, the results are universally repeatable. If plots of
bubble gum sales as a function of meteors correlates testably, that
would be an amazing coincidence!



But the point is to use an odd example to illustrate the idea of how
science works. If someone does it and publishes it, they would state
"We have observed a correlation ..." And then someone else would try
to do it. If they get comparable results, that reinforce that the
correlation may be valid. If their results are not comparable, we now
have two expts with contradictory results, and over time people will
try to figure out why they got different results, or at least collect
more data to establish whether or not the effect is true. If
substantial data accumulates supporting that it is true, then it can
become a scientific theory... that there is a correlation. That
statement is useful for making predictions, and is a valid scientific
statement. Note that nothing is said here about the reason for the
correlation, which might then become the subject of further
investigating.


As others have noted -- and shown! -- the terms hypothesis and theory
are not used consistently. But "officially", in the context of formal
discussion of that somewhat abstract notion of "scientific method", a
theory is something that is generally well accepted (meaning that it
has been tested). Also note that it does not convey "understanding"
why it is true.

bob

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

Steve Harris wrote:
Beware making fun of science fiction as "science fantasy."

Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives, force-field
"shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or workable libertarian
utopias. Then it's okay to laugh all you like. g.

I agree with you about libertarian utopias. As do nearly all
libertarians. We don't believe in utopias.

I'm not so sure about time machines. There are several ways they
could exist without creating a paradox.
--
Keith F. Lynch - - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

In article ,
Bob wrote:

As others have noted -- and shown! -- the terms hypothesis and theory
are not used consistently. But "officially", in the context of formal
discussion of that somewhat abstract notion of "scientific method", a
theory is something that is generally well accepted (meaning that it
has been tested). Also note that it does not convey "understanding"
why it is true.

theory -- An attempt to explain a certain class of phenomena by deducing
them as necessary consequences of other phenomena regarded as more
primitive and less in need of explanation. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of
Scientific and Technical Terms, 2nd Ed.

There was never a need to refer to the special hypothesis of relativity.
Whether tested or not, or even wrong, a theory is as described above. It
is the collection of postulates and definitions from which predictions of
the real world are to be derived. An untested theory is a theory that
hasn't been tested, a theory that is proven wrong is still a theory, it's
just a theory that's wrong.

Hypotheses, in a sense, are a larger class of propositions, since many
hypotheses can be formed that could never become a theory, but any theory
can be used as an hypothesis. And a proposition can be theory and
hypothesis at the same time.

--
"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."

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

"Daniel Prince" wrote in message
...
"Steve Harris"
wrote:

Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives,
force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or
workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh
all
you like. g.

There is one type of force-field "shield" that is
possible. It is a
magnetic field that can shield a ship or station against
certain types
of radiation (charged particles only).



Sure enough. Not too practical for ships or stations for
particles that are coming with energies found in nature (ie,
from the sun), because fields strong enough to protect
things that small are very hard to generate. But it's
possible in theory, and of course it works fine for really,
really big fields (ie, the Earth's field). Not that humans
have any idea how to generate that size field either. Or
even really know for sure how the Earth does it.

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

Jeff Utz wrote:

X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library1-aux.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:56:03 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !X0Yk1k-Vi.;I`c&8#rjC`%+$ (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165


"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
et...


Jeff Utz wrote:

Creationism, chiropractic & homeopathy


Chiropractic (the non nutty kind) is simply mechanical force applied to
the vertebrata to re-allign them. I have used the services of a
chiropractor over the years to do a re-alignment when my 4-th lumbar
vertebrea decides to lean over and press on the nerves.


No it isn't. Chiropractic is based on serveral incorrect theories, like
subluxations that can't be seen on xrays, MRI or CT scans..

http://www.chirobase.org/01General/controversy.html

That's right. If there is no subluxation (partial dislocation of bones
in a joint) in evidence, then the only reasonable presumption at this
point is that the theory, "A subluxations may really exist" is false,
and the null hypothesis, "There is no subluxation, as proposed" remains
standing as long as it is not knocked down by logically satisfactory
evidence of the proposed phenomenon.

This is known as the logical, scientific method of investigation.
Medical science, as contrasted to thinking like a quack with a mind full
of mush.

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

"Daniel Prince" wrote in message
...
"Steve Harris" wrote:

Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives,
force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or
workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh all
you like. g.

There is one type of force-field "shield" that is possible. It is a
magnetic field that can shield a ship or station against certain types
of radiation (charged particles only).
--


Actually, there is already a force field in use that acts as an air valve
(plasma valve).

I see no reason why you couldn't create such shields of any arbitrary power
(e.g., Star Trek's deflector shields), except, of course, that the power
requirements would be beyond insane.

http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/2003/bnlpr052803.htm



--
New definition of irony:

'Today's liberal Democrats are like the supporters of the Third Reich of the
'30's and '40's
- they absolutely trusted the government to "make things right". '
-Comment made on the internet by an ardent GW Bush supporter.

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

"Lawson English" wrote in message
...
"Daniel Prince" wrote in message
...
"Steve Harris" wrote:

Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives,
force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or
workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh all
you like. g.

There is one type of force-field "shield" that is possible. It is a
magnetic field that can shield a ship or station against certain types
of radiation (charged particles only).
--


Actually, there is already a force field in use that acts as an air valve
(plasma valve).

I see no reason why you couldn't create such shields of any arbitrary
power
(e.g., Star Trek's deflector shields), except, of course, that the power
requirements would be beyond insane.

That used to be said concerning computing power. Now I can carry the
portable equivalent of a UNIVAC to my seat on the airplane in my knapsack
(with wireless networking and a nice color LCD monitor built in).

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/univac/case1107.html

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte
limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:16:35 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ![$;F1k-Y'hiac\&8#rjC`%+^ (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165


"Richard Alexander" wrote in message
om...
root wrote in message
...
Richard Alexander wrote:
Historical events are--surprise!--History, not Science, and History
is
distinct from Science.

But it might take science to reveal history. The distinction isn't
as clear as you suggest.

There is a difference between science involvement and being a science.
Many church auditoriums are designed through the science of acoustics,
but that doesn't mean that religion is a science.

Certain terms have taken on a life of their own. A "quantum leap" or
"quantum advance" is used where we would normally say a "huge leap" or
a "huge advance." Of course, a true quantum leap is an extremely small
thing, the difference, say, in electron orbits. Likewise, saying that
something is not scientific has become akin to saying that something
is erroneous.

I disagree. I would argue that creationism is not scientific, because the
hypothesis that creation exists is not testable. That does not mean the
creationism does not exist, only that science cannot answer the question
whether or not creationism is true.


What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all, even a proposition
like, "It is true that a magic invisible creator of everything might really
exist"?

We have an ongoing scientific investigation of the theory that ETs (not in
evidence) might really exist. Here is how that theory is being investigated,
using the scientific method:


Null : of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
(as in, "There are no ETs.")


---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email

http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm

SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
method.

[...]

The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:

There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).

.... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...

---

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

"Lawson English" wrote in message
...
"Daniel Prince" wrote in message
...
"Steve Harris"
wrote:

Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives,
force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or
workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh
all
you like. g.

There is one type of force-field "shield" that is
possible. It is a
magnetic field that can shield a ship or station against
certain types
of radiation (charged particles only).
--


Actually, there is already a force field in use that acts
as an air valve
(plasma valve).

I see no reason why you couldn't create such shields of
any arbitrary power
(e.g., Star Trek's deflector shields), except, of course,
that the power
requirements would be beyond insane.

http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/2003/bnlpr052803.htm



COMMENT:

This "shield" is made of matter (plasma = ionized gas), not
force. As a small curtain of flow, it's no different in
principle from the hail of slugs from a phalanx gun on a
carrier. Doesn't count as a "force field". And even if it
did, plasma magnetic confinement in 3-space, has proven (so
far) impossible for decent times except in interiors of
masses (if it was easy we'd have fusion power). For a nice
exterior shield or plasma confinement field, we're back to
the idea that was already brought up. The Bussard sort of
thing. I personally doubt it's possible except with gravity
(and for that you need mass of a star). Plasmas are clever
and slippery.

But I would love to be proven wrong, of course.

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

"Bob White" wrote in message news:xEBRa.82631$N7.11056@sccrnsc03...
"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte
limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:16:35 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ![$;F1k-Y'hiac\&8#rjC`%+^ (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165


"Richard Alexander" wrote in message
om...
root wrote in message
...
Richard Alexander wrote:
Historical events are--surprise!--History, not Science, and History
is
distinct from Science.

But it might take science to reveal history. The distinction isn't
as clear as you suggest.

There is a difference between science involvement and being a science.
Many church auditoriums are designed through the science of acoustics,
but that doesn't mean that religion is a science.

Certain terms have taken on a life of their own. A "quantum leap" or
"quantum advance" is used where we would normally say a "huge leap" or
a "huge advance." Of course, a true quantum leap is an extremely small
thing, the difference, say, in electron orbits. Likewise, saying that
something is not scientific has become akin to saying that something
is erroneous.

I disagree. I would argue that creationism is not scientific, because the
hypothesis that creation exists is not testable. That does not mean the
creationism does not exist, only that science cannot answer the question
whether or not creationism is true.


What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all,

Like the proposition "God does not exist"? Doh! Another Septical
self-refutation.

Septic remains the completely self-refuting, mendacious, and
discredited old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism.

Jeff

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

[Mike Dubbeld] (apparently quoting Skinner)

| You are the product of your environment.

[Rolf Marvin Bøe Lindgren]

| and where does he say that?

[Bob White]

| Ferster and Skinner demonstrated that bhavior is determined by the
| contingencies of reinforcement from the environment acting upon the genetic
| heritage of the organism. See _Schedules of Reinforcement_ by B. F.
| Skinner, Carl D. Cheney, W. H. Morse, P. B. Dews, Charles B. Ferster

where exactly here does Skinner state that we are products of our
environment?

[Rolf Marvin Bøe Lindgren]

| why do you assume that Skinner studied philosophy, physiology and
| neurology? why did he put so much emphasis on the biological makeup of
| the organism?

[Bob White]

| On the contrary, for Ferster and Skinner, et al, the emphasis is on
| the experimental variable, "contingencies of reinforcement from the
| environment." The variable, "genetic heritage (biological makeup)" is
| a variable that has been controled for in the experiments
| demonstrating that behavior is determined by the contingencies of
| reinforcement.

where does Skinner state that "behavior is determined by the
contingencies of reinforcement"? exactly where does he use the word
_determined_?

--
Rolf Lindgren http://www.roffe.com/

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

"Mike Ruskai" writes:

On 13 Jul 2003 20:43:01 -0700, Richard Alexander wrote:

Al Klein wrote in message . ..

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?

Depends on what you mean by "testable". For a theory to be scientific, it
must at least be falsifiable. Whether that's the same as "testable" or
not is mostly a matter of semantics.

Popper's theory of science demanded that a statement had to be in
principle experimentally falsifiable if it was to be considered
scientific. Being unfalsifiable was therefore the mark of the
unscientific.

This is now regarded as an oversimplification. For example, Lakatos, a
pupil of Popper, showed that there was a class of scientific
statements which were not falsifiable by an experiment. Instead they
were used to generate falsifiable hypotheses. Instead of being
abandoned because they had been falsified, they were abandoned when
they became unproductive generators of falsifiable hypotheses.

Unfortunately Popper's oversimplification caught the imagination of
science teachers and armchair philosophers, and its Procrustean view
of science is still believed to be the last word by many, whereas it
was only Popper's hypothesis of how science worked, which has since
been falsified :-)
--
Chris Malcolm +44 (0)131 650 3085 DoD #205
School of Informatics, Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill,
Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK. [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/ ]

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

"greywolf42" writes:

No hypothesis can be considered part of the scientific method if it is not
fundamentally disprovable.

Only if you adhere to Popper's hypothesis about the scientfic method,
which has been falsified. There are more classes of scientific
statements, hypotheses, etc., than Popper considered.
--
Chris Malcolm +44 (0)131 650 3085 DoD #205
School of Informatics, Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill,
Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK. [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/ ]

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 19:38:45 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !a29D1k-XCFjkR\&7g97'lJ6R (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165


"Bob White" wrote in message
news:xEBRa.82631$N7.11056@sccrnsc03...

(...)

What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all, even a proposition
like, "It is true that a magic invisible creator of everything might
really
exist"?

How would you test this?

(...)

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 19:49:34 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !\V551k-X_!m_B&&8#rjC`%-Q (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165


"Bob White" wrote in message
news:_OARa.82779$Ph3.7611@sccrnsc04...

"Lawson English" wrote in message
...
"Daniel Prince" wrote in message
...
"Steve Harris" wrote:

Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives,
force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or
workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh all
you like. g.

There is one type of force-field "shield" that is possible. It is a
magnetic field that can shield a ship or station against certain types
of radiation (charged particles only).
--


Actually, there is already a force field in use that acts as an air
valve
(plasma valve).

I see no reason why you couldn't create such shields of any arbitrary
power
(e.g., Star Trek's deflector shields), except, of course, that the power
requirements would be beyond insane.

That used to be said concerning computing power. Now I can carry the
portable equivalent of a UNIVAC to my seat on the airplane in my knapsack
(with wireless networking and a nice color LCD monitor built in).

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/univac/case1107.html


Really? Calculators have color monitors and networking built in too? I knew
laptops do, but you said the equivalent of the Univac, essentially a giant
calculator + printer.

Even a palmtop is much more powerful than a Univac.

Jeff

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

"Jeff Young" wrote in message
m...
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:xEBRa.82631$N7.11056@sccrnsc03...
"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte
limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper
postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:16:35 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ![$;F1k-Y'hiac\&8#rjC`%+^ (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165


"Richard Alexander" wrote in message
om...
root wrote in message
...
Richard Alexander wrote:
Historical events are--surprise!--History, not Science, and
History
is
distinct from Science.

But it might take science to reveal history. The distinction isn't
as clear as you suggest.

There is a difference between science involvement and being a
science.
Many church auditoriums are designed through the science of
acoustics,
but that doesn't mean that religion is a science.

Certain terms have taken on a life of their own. A "quantum leap" or
"quantum advance" is used where we would normally say a "huge leap"
or
a "huge advance." Of course, a true quantum leap is an extremely
small
thing, the difference, say, in electron orbits. Likewise, saying
that
something is not scientific has become akin to saying that something
is erroneous.

I disagree. I would argue that creationism is not scientific, because
the
hypothesis that creation exists is not testable. That does not mean
the
creationism does not exist, only that science cannot answer the
question
whether or not creationism is true.


What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method
of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all,

Like the proposition "God does not exist"?

That what does not exist? Define your term. So far none of you
true-believers has ever presented anything for consideration, nor specified
anything meaningful, verifiable to search for.

The proposition in question is that an invisible something (still
essentially undefined) may in reality exist, knucklehead. "There is no such
thing" never stands in need of proof, since the burden of proof cannot be
shifted. I'm sure you know this principle of valid argument (logic) by now.


You can stop any time your fallacy of trying to shift the burden of proof to
the non-believers. The non-believers have nothing (no thing) to prove,
knucklehead.


[unsnip]

What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all, even a proposition
like, "It is true that a magic invisible creator of everything might really
exist"?

We have an ongoing scientific investigation of the theory that ETs (not in
evidence) might really exist. Here is how that theory is being investigated,
using the scientific method:


Null : of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
(as in, "There are no ETs.")


---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email

http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm

SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
method.

[...]

The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:

There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).

.... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...

---

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte
limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 19:49:34 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !\V551k-X_!m_B&&8#rjC`%-Q (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165


"Bob White" wrote in message
news:_OARa.82779$Ph3.7611@sccrnsc04...

"Lawson English" wrote in message
...
"Daniel Prince" wrote in message
...
"Steve Harris" wrote:

Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives,
force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or
workable libertarian utopias. Then it's okay to laugh all
you like. g.

There is one type of force-field "shield" that is possible. It is a
magnetic field that can shield a ship or station against certain
types
of radiation (charged particles only).
--


Actually, there is already a force field in use that acts as an air
valve
(plasma valve).

I see no reason why you couldn't create such shields of any arbitrary
power
(e.g., Star Trek's deflector shields), except, of course, that the
power
requirements would be beyond insane.

That used to be said concerning computing power. Now I can carry the
portable equivalent of a UNIVAC to my seat on the airplane in my
knapsack
(with wireless networking and a nice color LCD monitor built in).

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/univac/case1107.html


Really? Calculators have color monitors and networking built in too? I
knew
laptops do, but you said the equivalent of the Univac, essentially a giant
calculator + printer.

Even a palmtop is much more powerful than a Univac.


My point precisely, knucklehead.

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

wrote in message
...
In article , "Steve Harris"
writes:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Joe Bugeja" writes:

When Einstein raised relativity, it was not all
immediately testable, that
came later.

The requirement is for "testable in principle", not
"immediately
testable". Of course, it helps if at least some parts of
it are
readily testable. But not necessarily all of it.


It's an interesting question how "testable in principle"
needs to be in practice. Is a theory "scientific" even if
only testable by making a superconducting accelerator that
loops around the entire equator of the planet? How much of
string theory is science, in Popper's sense?

I would say that the question here is primarily not about "scientific"
but about "theory". You know, we've been over this topic before, how
the usage of the term "theory" in science differs from this in layman
language (which is why we get all these posts harping on "but this is
not proven, this is just a theory":-)).

So, it is usually understood (though rarely spelled out) in science
that in order to call something "theory" it should have at least some
empirical support. Thus I would say that it is premature to call
string theory a "scientific theory".

Why? It has lots of support, including emperical support.

How does one saying "this is not proven; it's just a theory" differ from a
scientific theory? Not all scientific theories are proven. Having evidence
in support of a theory is not the same thing as proving a theory.

Jeff


Or how about cryonics? It's testable in theory, BUT not
now. You have to wait 100 years to see if technology comes
up to the point that quick-frozen "corpses" in liquid
nitrogen really are repairable (or not). What do we say
about the idea in the meantime?

We call it "scientific speculation" or something of the sort.

There's a lot of stuff that is on the borderlands of
science. It's conjecture that isn't testable, but should be
one day. It sounds reasonable to some scientists, but
completely looney to others. Cryonics. Terraforming Mars.
Sending "people" to Alpha Centauri. Construction of
artificial intelligence. Nanotechnology, including the holy
grail of duplication of humans (not just cloning, but full
duplication up to the point of raising questions of
identity). Production of group minds formed by connected
clusters of humans and/or machine minds (borganisms).

All this is not really religion, but it's not really
science-as-we-know it either. It's borderland stuff. My best
term for it is the old one: science fiction.

That's fine, for some of it. Point is, you've a whole spectrum.
Starting with stuff which is a pretty immediate extension of existing
science and/or technology and ending with some really speculative
things.

Beware making fun of science fiction as "science fantasy."


Good point

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

"Eric Pepke" wrote in message
om...

A theory, however, is a kind of logical and rational
tool. It
takes a set of input statements and uses logic, reason,
mathematics, etc. to get a set of output statements.


As you've given the definition, there's nothing that says
"science," since it is still true that GIGO. She floats,
therefore is a witch.

For example, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is a
theory
because it takes input statements (such as the idea that
the laws
of physics should be the same for all intertial observers)
and
produced output statements (time dilation, Lorentz
contraction,
etc.)


No, the real reason it's a theory is that Einstein said it
was a Theorie in German, and it got translated to "theory"
in English.



The idea that the laws of physics should be the same for
all
inertial observers is due to POINCARE, not EINSTEIN. So
why
don't we talk about Poincare's theory of relativity?


Because Poincare was French? A trick question?

Einstein put in some stuff about lightspeed invarience also
(this doesn't follow from physical law invarience).

In my view
and definition of "theory," it's because it wasn't a
theory. It
was just an assertion, usable as a hypothesis or as an
input
statement to a theory. It's pretty simple. You'd have to
come
up with some other reason why Poincare's assertion is not
called a theory.

See above.



However, I'm defining "theory" in a way that I think is
consistent
with the way most modern scientists use the term and is
also
consistent with the half-century-old distinction between
theoretical
and experimental physics. I've worked with a lot of
theoretical
physicists, and as far as I can tell, they take hypotheses
that they
get from experimentalists or else just make up themselves,
put
them through the rational process that I have called
making a
theory, and produce output statements that can be used as
hypotheses.


As do experimentalists. But experimentalists take data and
separate it from noise, whereas theorists have to rely on
somebody else to do that for them. The difference lies not
not in what theorists do, but in what they don't do.
It's sort of like the difference between surgeons and other
kinds of doctors.


You're welcome to argue that I'm wrong, that a theory is
really
just a glorified hypothesis or something, but it would be
a lot
more persuasive if there were some referent to your
argument.


Burdon is really on you. "Theory" as a term has not been
used consistently over the years, even by physicists. I'm
sorry about that. You can't fix it.

SBH

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

In article , "Jeff Utz" writes:

wrote in message
...
In article , "Steve Harris"
writes:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Joe Bugeja" writes:

When Einstein raised relativity, it was not all
immediately testable, that
came later.

The requirement is for "testable in principle", not
"immediately
testable". Of course, it helps if at least some parts of
it are
readily testable. But not necessarily all of it.


It's an interesting question how "testable in principle"
needs to be in practice. Is a theory "scientific" even if
only testable by making a superconducting accelerator that
loops around the entire equator of the planet? How much of
string theory is science, in Popper's sense?

I would say that the question here is primarily not about "scientific"
but about "theory". You know, we've been over this topic before, how
the usage of the term "theory" in science differs from this in layman
language (which is why we get all these posts harping on "but this is
not proven, this is just a theory":-)).

So, it is usually understood (though rarely spelled out) in science
that in order to call something "theory" it should have at least some
empirical support. Thus I would say that it is premature to call
string theory a "scientific theory".

Why? It has lots of support, including emperical support.

Not at the moment. It may be enticing and elegant, but there is no
empirical support currently available, and it'll take quite a while
before we reach the regions of physical parameter space where we can
get such support.

How does one saying "this is not proven; it's just a theory" differ from a
scientific theory? Not all scientific theories are proven.

Correction. No scientific theory is proven, nor can it be.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

Jeff Utz wrote:


How does one saying "this is not proven; it's just a theory" differ from a
scientific theory? Not all scientific theories are proven. Having evidence
in support of a theory is not the same thing as proving a theory.\\

No scientific theory is proven right. A scientific theory can be proven
wrong. The point is that a scientific theory is testable, challangable
and falsifiable, empirically.

Bob Kolker

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

"Bob White" wrote in message news:xEBRa.82631$N7.11056@sccrnsc03...
"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte
limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:16:35 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ![$;F1k-Y'hiac\&8#rjC`%+^ (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165


"Richard Alexander" wrote in message
om...
root wrote in message
...
Richard Alexander wrote:
Historical events are--surprise!--History, not Science, and History
is
distinct from Science.

But it might take science to reveal history. The distinction isn't
as clear as you suggest.

There is a difference between science involvement and being a science.
Many church auditoriums are designed through the science of acoustics,
but that doesn't mean that religion is a science.

Certain terms have taken on a life of their own. A "quantum leap" or
"quantum advance" is used where we would normally say a "huge leap" or
a "huge advance." Of course, a true quantum leap is an extremely small
thing, the difference, say, in electron orbits. Likewise, saying that
something is not scientific has become akin to saying that something
is erroneous.

I disagree. I would argue that creationism is not scientific, because the
hypothesis that creation exists is not testable. That does not mean the
creationism does not exist, only that science cannot answer the question
whether or not creationism is true.

What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all,

Before the scientific method can be used, the object of investigation
must be accessible. Thus, one-time events are likely to be beyond the
scope of the scientific method. Historical events in general are
beyond the scope of the scientific method, though one can use the
scientific method on some on-going after-effects.

One lesson emphasized in my classes of Logic and Critical Thinking is
that logic is a wonderful servant, but a wretched master. There are
those who would make logic and the scientific method our masters. You
sound like one of them.

We have an ongoing scientific investigation of the theory that ETs (not in
evidence) might really exist. Here is how that theory is being investigated,
using the scientific method:

[snip] Yes, we have seen this posted ad nauseum on this thread. The
only hope that you have of being able to use the scientific method in
the search for ETs is that ETs might be accessible to you. If they are
not accessible, the scientific method is useless. The theory that
there are no ETs is only testable (or falsifiable) if ETs have the
potential of being detected if they exist. For material objects, there
is a fair chance of having access, but events disappear every day with
no clear evidence that the events ever occurred.

Here is one of the most abominable thoughts to the neo-humanistic
mind, a thought that many of them refuse to accept: there are some
things that we can never know.

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:ZXMRa.85541$ye4.64158@sccrnsc01...


Jeff Utz wrote:


How does one saying "this is not proven; it's just a theory" differ from
a
scientific theory? Not all scientific theories are proven. Having
evidence
in support of a theory is not the same thing as proving a theory.\\

No scientific theory is proven right. A scientific theory can be proven
wrong. The point is that a scientific theory is testable, challangable
and falsifiable, empirically.



AND amenable to revision when needed.

--
New definition of irony:

'Today's liberal Democrats are like the supporters of the Third Reich of the
'30's and '40's
- they absolutely trusted the government to "make things right". '
-Comment made on the internet by an ardent GW Bush supporter.

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

(Richard Alexander) wrote in message . com...
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?

Science in Simple Steps
http://forums.about.com/ab-atheism2/messages?msg=91.4 -

"What Is This Thing Called Science? : An Assessment of the Nature and
Status of Science and Its Methods" by A. F. Chalmers - Paperback -
288 pages 3rd edition (July 1999) Open Univ Pr; ISBN: 0335201091
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0335201091/


"Science is the true theology" -- Thomas Paine
(as quoted in Emerson: The Mind on Fire page 153)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520206894/

Thomas Paine
http://tinyurl.com/afpu

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

In article ,
Richard Alexander wrote:
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:xEBRa.82631$N7.11056@sccrnsc03...

What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all,

Before the scientific method can be used, the object of investigation
must be accessible. Thus, one-time events are likely to be beyond the
scope of the scientific method. Historical events in general are
beyond the scope of the scientific method, though one can use the
scientific method on some on-going after-effects.

I wouldn't say that's strictly true. We can't repeat SN1987a, for one
example. Data about it was gathered from multiple sources, but even if it
weren't, we have a larger context of stellar physics and astronomical
observation to fit it into. Including our own Sun, and neutrinos created
reliably in reactors and accelerators.


One lesson emphasized in my classes of Logic and Critical Thinking is
that logic is a wonderful servant, but a wretched master. There are
those who would make logic and the scientific method our masters. You
sound like one of them.

Vulcans on Star Trek are the worst, spouting off "Your behavior isn't
logical" when they have no idea what goals that behavior is even meant to
achieve.

I think this guy has more faith in, and gives more scope to science than
the typical scientist does. He has an issue -- God is not merely unproven
or untestable, God must be provably false, it must not even make sense to
bring up the subject, and let science and logic be modified such that it
is so. Which is about as bad as the creationists who pick their own
premise -- the Bible -- and let all other intellectual endeavor be
modified such that the premise remains intact.

--
"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."

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

In article ,
Richard Alexander wrote:
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:xEBRa.82631$N7.11056@sccrnsc03...

What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all,

Before the scientific method can be used, the object of investigation
must be accessible. Thus, one-time events are likely to be beyond the
scope of the scientific method. Historical events in general are
beyond the scope of the scientific method, though one can use the
scientific method on some on-going after-effects.

I wouldn't say that's strictly true. We can't repeat SN1987a, for one
example. Data about it was gathered from multiple sources, but even if it
weren't, we have a larger context of stellar physics and astronomical
observation to fit it into. Including our own Sun, and neutrinos created
reliably in reactors and accelerators.


One lesson emphasized in my classes of Logic and Critical Thinking is
that logic is a wonderful servant, but a wretched master. There are
those who would make logic and the scientific method our masters. You
sound like one of them.

Vulcans on Star Trek are the worst, spouting off "Your behavior isn't
logical" when they have no idea what goals that behavior is even meant to
achieve.

I think this guy has more faith in, and gives more scope to science than
the typical scientist does. He has an issue -- God is not merely unproven
or untestable, God must be provably false, it must not even make sense to
bring up the subject, and let science and logic be modified such that it
is so. Which is about as bad as the creationists who pick their own
premise -- the Bible -- and let all other intellectual endeavor be
modified such that the premise remains intact.

--
"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."

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

In article ,
Richard Alexander wrote:
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:xEBRa.82631$N7.11056@sccrnsc03...

What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all,

Before the scientific method can be used, the object of investigation
must be accessible. Thus, one-time events are likely to be beyond the
scope of the scientific method. Historical events in general are
beyond the scope of the scientific method, though one can use the
scientific method on some on-going after-effects.

I wouldn't say that's strictly true. We can't repeat SN1987a, for one
example. Data about it was gathered from multiple sources, but even if it
weren't, we have a larger context of stellar physics and astronomical
observation to fit it into. Including our own Sun, and neutrinos created
reliably in reactors and accelerators.


One lesson emphasized in my classes of Logic and Critical Thinking is
that logic is a wonderful servant, but a wretched master. There are
those who would make logic and the scientific method our masters. You
sound like one of them.

Vulcans on Star Trek are the worst, spouting off "Your behavior isn't
logical" when they have no idea what goals that behavior is even meant to
achieve.

I think this guy has more faith in, and gives more scope to science than
the typical scientist does. He has an issue -- God is not merely unproven
or untestable, God must be provably false, it must not even make sense to
bring up the subject, and let science and logic be modified such that it
is so. Which is about as bad as the creationists who pick their own
premise -- the Bible -- and let all other intellectual endeavor be
modified such that the premise remains intact.

--
"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."

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:ZXMRa.85541$ye4.64158@sccrnsc01...
Jeff Utz wrote:


How does one saying "this is not proven; it's just a theory" differ from a
scientific theory? Not all scientific theories are proven. Having evidence
in support of a theory is not the same thing as proving a theory.\\

No scientific theory is proven right. A scientific theory can be proven
wrong. The point is that a scientific theory is testable, challangable
and falsifiable, empirically.

Bob Kolker



theres no way

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

"Bob White" wrote in message news:jIHRa.84306$Ph3.10244@sccrnsc04...
"Jeff Young" wrote in message
m...
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:xEBRa.82631$N7.11056@sccrnsc03...
"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte
limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper
postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:16:35 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ![$;F1k-Y'hiac\&8#rjC`%+^ (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165


"Richard Alexander" wrote in message
om...
root wrote in message
...
Richard Alexander wrote:
Historical events are--surprise!--History, not Science, and
History
is
distinct from Science.

But it might take science to reveal history. The distinction isn't
as clear as you suggest.

There is a difference between science involvement and being a
science.
Many church auditoriums are designed through the science of
acoustics,
but that doesn't mean that religion is a science.

Certain terms have taken on a life of their own. A "quantum leap" or
"quantum advance" is used where we would normally say a "huge leap"
or
a "huge advance." Of course, a true quantum leap is an extremely
small
thing, the difference, say, in electron orbits. Likewise, saying
that
something is not scientific has become akin to saying that something
is erroneous.

I disagree. I would argue that creationism is not scientific, because
the
hypothesis that creation exists is not testable. That does not mean
the
creationism does not exist, only that science cannot answer the
question
whether or not creationism is true.


What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method
of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all,

Like the proposition "God does not exist"?

That what

snip diversion

"God does not exist" is a proposition, Septic. Your avoidance of that
fact is once again noted.

Septic remains the completely mendacious, dishonest, refuted, and
discredited old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism.

Jeff

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

"Bob White" wrote in message news:jIHRa.84306$Ph3.10244@sccrnsc04...
"Jeff Young" wrote in message
m...
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:xEBRa.82631$N7.11056@sccrnsc03...
"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte
limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper
postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:16:35 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ![$;F1k-Y'hiac\&8#rjC`%+^ (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165


"Richard Alexander" wrote in message
om...
root wrote in message
...
Richard Alexander wrote:
Historical events are--surprise!--History, not Science, and
History
is
distinct from Science.

But it might take science to reveal history. The distinction isn't
as clear as you suggest.

There is a difference between science involvement and being a
science.
Many church auditoriums are designed through the science of
acoustics,
but that doesn't mean that religion is a science.

Certain terms have taken on a life of their own. A "quantum leap" or
"quantum advance" is used where we would normally say a "huge leap"
or
a "huge advance." Of course, a true quantum leap is an extremely
small
thing, the difference, say, in electron orbits. Likewise, saying
that
something is not scientific has become akin to saying that something
is erroneous.

I disagree. I would argue that creationism is not scientific, because
the
hypothesis that creation exists is not testable. That does not mean
the
creationism does not exist, only that science cannot answer the
question
whether or not creationism is true.


What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method
of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all,

Like the proposition "God does not exist"?

That what

snip diversion

"God does not exist" is a proposition, Septic. Your avoidance of that
fact is once again noted.

Septic remains the completely mendacious, dishonest, refuted, and
discredited old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism.

Jeff

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

"neepy" wrote in message
om...
(Richard Alexander) wrote in message
. com...
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?

Well, it depends on your definition of "science", doesn't it? Popper
used the concept of falsifiability to DEFINE science (actually, to
distinguish between "science" and "pseudoscience ...


Very close, but not quite right. Popper's famous book of 1959, _The Logic of
Scientific Discovery_ is all about statements.

It is all about distinguishing between statements which are suitably
scientific like "There is no X" and those which are merely idle metaphysical
speculation like "X exists" because there is no way to ever know it if "X
exists" is false, even if it were false. The only thing that can falsify it
is the statement, "There is no X."

Popper is providing a suitable "criterion of demarcation" (his words)
between empirically falsifiable scientific statements like "There is no X"
and un-falsifiable non-empirical metaphysical statements like "X exists."

See Karl Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, chapter 4, "The
problem of demarcation."

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

Yes.

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Richard Alexander wrote:
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:xEBRa.82631$N7.11056@sccrnsc03...

What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method
of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all,

Before the scientific method can be used, the object of investigation
must be accessible. Thus, one-time events are likely to be beyond the
scope of the scientific method. Historical events in general are
beyond the scope of the scientific method, though one can use the
scientific method on some on-going after-effects.

I wouldn't say that's strictly true. We can't repeat SN1987a, for one
example. Data about it was gathered from multiple sources, but even if it
weren't, we have a larger context of stellar physics and astronomical
observation to fit it into. Including our own Sun, and neutrinos created
reliably in reactors and accelerators.


One lesson emphasized in my classes of Logic and Critical Thinking is
that logic is a wonderful servant, but a wretched master. There are
those who would make logic and the scientific method our masters. You
sound like one of them.

Vulcans on Star Trek are the worst, spouting off "Your behavior isn't
logical" when they have no idea what goals that behavior is even meant to
achieve.

I think this guy has more faith in, and gives more scope to science than
the typical scientist does. He has an issue -- God is not merely unproven
or untestable, God must be provably false ...

Straw man. That is not what I am saying at all, certainly nothing like, "God
must be provably false." Please try to get it straight, instead of building
a straw man

All that I am saying is that given any theory of the form "X exists" the
logical scientific method of investigation is to test the null hypothesis,
"There is no X" to see if that can be knocked down by demonstration of an X.

See the scientific method being used to investigate the theory that ETs
might in reality exist:

Null : of, being, or relating to zero
www.m-w.com
(as in, "There are no ETs.")


---
Testing the Null Hypothesis
by John Marcus, MD
email

http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm

SETI is perhaps the most highly interdisciplinary of sciences,
encompassing not only astronomy, biology, engineering and physics, but
also psychology, metaphysics, probability, and belief. But it is, first
and foremost, a science, one to which we hope to apply the scientific
method.

[...]

The Scientific Method for the Argus search is this:

There are no ET's. (null hypothesis).

.... [W]e now design an experiment (Project Argus, for example) to try to
prove that statement wrong, recognizing that it takes only one clear,
unambiguous counter-example to reject the null hypothesis. ...

---

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

In article , (Gregory L. Hansen) writes:
In article ,
Richard Alexander wrote:
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:xEBRa.82631$N7.11056@sccrnsc03...

What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all,

Before the scientific method can be used, the object of investigation
must be accessible. Thus, one-time events are likely to be beyond the
scope of the scientific method. Historical events in general are
beyond the scope of the scientific method, though one can use the
scientific method on some on-going after-effects.

...

I think this guy has more faith in, and gives more scope to science than
the typical scientist does. He has an issue -- God is not merely unproven
or untestable, God must be provably false, it must not even make sense to
bring up the subject, and let science and logic be modified such that it
is so. Which is about as bad as the creationists who pick their own
premise -- the Bible -- and let all other intellectual endeavor be
modified such that the premise remains intact.

Yep, we see here again the pattern that all zealots, no matter what
their particular brand of zealotry is, are essentially the same.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

In article , (Gregory L. Hansen) writes:
In article ,
Richard Alexander wrote:
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:xEBRa.82631$N7.11056@sccrnsc03...

What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all,

Before the scientific method can be used, the object of investigation
must be accessible. Thus, one-time events are likely to be beyond the
scope of the scientific method. Historical events in general are
beyond the scope of the scientific method, though one can use the
scientific method on some on-going after-effects.

...

I think this guy has more faith in, and gives more scope to science than
the typical scientist does. He has an issue -- God is not merely unproven
or untestable, God must be provably false, it must not even make sense to
bring up the subject, and let science and logic be modified such that it
is so. Which is about as bad as the creationists who pick their own
premise -- the Bible -- and let all other intellectual endeavor be
modified such that the premise remains intact.

Yep, we see here again the pattern that all zealots, no matter what
their particular brand of zealotry is, are essentially the same.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

In article WVVRa.91477$Ph3.10754@sccrnsc04,
Bob White wrote:

"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Richard Alexander wrote:
"Bob White" wrote in message
news:xEBRa.82631$N7.11056@sccrnsc03...

What prevents us from using the logical, systematic, scientific method
of
investigation to investigate any proposition at all,

Before the scientific method can be used, the object of investigation
must be accessible. Thus, one-time events are likely to be beyond the
scope of the scientific method. Historical events in general are
beyond the scope of the scientific method, though one can use the
scientific method on some on-going after-effects.

I wouldn't say that's strictly true. We can't repeat SN1987a, for one
example. Data about it was gathered from multiple sources, but even if it
weren't, we have a larger context of stellar physics and astronomical
observation to fit it into. Including our own Sun, and neutrinos created
reliably in reactors and accelerators.


One lesson emphasized in my classes of Logic and Critical Thinking is
that logic is a wonderful servant, but a wretched master. There are
those who would make logic and the scientific method our masters. You
sound like one of them.

Vulcans on Star Trek are the worst, spouting off "Your behavior isn't
logical" when they have no idea what goals that behavior is even meant to
achieve.

I think this guy has more faith in, and gives more scope to science than
the typical scientist does. He has an issue -- God is not merely unproven
or untestable, God must be provably false ...

Straw man. That is not what I am saying at all, certainly nothing like, "God
must be provably false." Please try to get it straight, instead of building
a straw man

All right, then. God might exist, there's no proof that he doesn't.
--
"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."

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

Sorry, I thought this thread was dead.

Unless you were born yesterday, you know about Nature-Nurture debate.
(of which nurture appears to be winning by genetics - at the moment.
even if they also are wrong. Our behavior on the genetic account arise
from our genes - Matt Riley in The Genome talks about 'The Language
Gene.' I don't think much of this either) The Nature-Nurture debate is
simply part of a much longer debate and that being between Empiricism
and Rationalism going all the way back to Aristotle (as Empiricist) and
Plato (as Rationalist).

For Skinner---

My information comes from Professor Daniel Robinson Ph.D. in Psychology
at Georgetown University in Washington DC course Great Ideas of
Psychology Lectures14 B.F. Skinner and Modern Behaviorism and Lecture 15
B.F. Skinner and the Engineering of Society. His information listed in
the referernce for his course are B.F. Skinner Science and Human
Behavior, (1953) New York: Macmillion/B.F. Skinner "Can Psychology be a
science of the mind?" 1990 American Psychologist, vol 45 1206-10.
Robinson has taught at Georgetown University since 1971where he is a
professor of psychology. He also has a number of books, one of which is
Philosophy of Psychology.

Robinson Lecture 14 Outline pamphlet p7-8 ---

"I. Skinner sought to establish psychology as a descriptive science of
behavior."
"A.Ernst Mach took a the grounding of every science to be at the level
of observation and experiment."
"B. Skinner was committed to the Machian perspective in the
psychological domain. This would become clear in Skinner's first work,
Behavior of Organisms.. In this work he declared a scientific psychology
based on behavior could be independent from physiology, chemistry, and
the like."
"1. Throughout the 19'th century, influential psychological thinkers
tied psychological phenomena to "physiological phenomena."
"2. In dealing with this question, Skinner argued that the facts of
behavior survive any theoretical construction. Nothing is added to the
information of behavior by knowing what is inside the organism, even if
there isn't anything inside the organism at all."

[Read that last line again --- real carefully.]

"II. A purely descriptive science of behavior must be lean in its
terminology, avoiding the use of private, mentalistic terms. To avoid
the use of mentalistic terms, one may adopt operational definitions. For
instance, one can define hunger as hours of food deprivation. The
determinants of behavior, from Skinner's perpective, are external to the
organism.


"Rolf Marvin Bøe Lindgren" wrote in message
...
[Mike Dubbeld] (apparently quoting Skinner)

| You are the product of your environment.

[Rolf Marvin Bøe Lindgren]

| and where does he say that?

[Bob White]

Nobody ever said this was a Skinner quote. But it most certainly does
fit Skinners idiot ideas. From above --

"---Skinner argued that the facts of behavior survive any theoretical
construction. Nothing is added to the information of behavior by knowing
what is inside the organism, even if there isn't anything inside the
organism at all." D. Robinson

In other words Skinners version of psychology was independent of all
physiology whatsoever. It was not necessary to know what the physiology
of the organism was - only how it behaved. And its behavior was a result
of past experience. This same idiot idea arose with John Locke - Tabula
Rasa/blank slate. Per idiot brain Empiricists, humans have no innate
intelligence - let alone animals.

It is likely you do not know how Gestalt Psychology was the first to
deal Behaviorism a fatal blow. Kohler and his experiments on Sultan the
ape most certainly can not be accounted for by Behaviorism not the work
of Toleman and Blotchet wheeling rats around in wheelbarrows through
mazes. Also Robinson lectures. That was long ago. Anyone that does not
believe that animals have mental life is a total whacko/loser -
especially Skinner. Behaviorism has its place but it is only a small
place. I also know of nightmare stories of Behaviorists attempting to
associate behavior with catatonic schitzophrenia - yes sportsfan, this
was attempted to be diagnosed as a behavioral problem too. Idiots.

In the 'Enlightenment' thousands of witches were burned at the stake.
Who do you think your chances of being tried as a witch would be
better - tried by the church or by the state? (Crown) The Church. Know
why? Because the Kings and so forth sought to be holier than the holy
and thus prosecuted more vigorously. What does this have to do with
anything? Psychology is a science wannabe. It too attempts to be more
scientific than science. In so doing it makes a lot of stupid decisions.
B.F. Skinner was one such decision. Empirical means to justify itself as
a science - not to further understanding in psychology. Yes lugnuts
psychology idiot behaviorists, it is ok to once again talk about the
mind and the mental life of animals without concern for cuts in funding
as not being scientific. I call it the 'Skinner Rein of Terror.' Skinner
did at least as much harm to psychology as he did help to it.


Mike Dubbeld



| Ferster and Skinner demonstrated that bhavior is determined by the
| contingencies of reinforcement from the environment acting upon the
genetic
| heritage of the organism. See _Schedules of Reinforcement_ by B. F.
| Skinner, Carl D. Cheney, W. H. Morse, P. B. Dews, Charles B. Ferster

where exactly here does Skinner state that we are products of our
environment?

[Rolf Marvin Bøe Lindgren]

| why do you assume that Skinner studied philosophy, physiology and
| neurology? why did he put so much emphasis on the biological makeup
of
| the organism?

[Bob White]

| On the contrary, for Ferster and Skinner, et al, the emphasis is on
| the experimental variable, "contingencies of reinforcement from the
| environment." The variable, "genetic heritage (biological makeup)"
is
| a variable that has been controled for in the experiments
| demonstrating that behavior is determined by the contingencies of
| reinforcement.

where does Skinner state that "behavior is determined by the
contingencies of reinforcement"? exactly where does he use the word
_determined_?

--
Rolf Lindgren
http://www.roffe.com/

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
 

Uncle Al wrote in
:

Discovery cannot be managed, nor is it subject to statistical quality
control. The big discoveries are invariably made by undeserving
personal in wretched circumstances, by "accident."

Bullshit.

The "bigger" discoveries were made by very modest
management/quality-control and lots of enthusiasm, not
accidents. You're wrong on both accounts.

--

be yek ghureh sardish mikoneh be yek keshmesh
garmi.