|
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:05:42 -0500, Maleki
wrote: wrote in : Richard Alexander wrote: 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. Neither of you know what you're talking about. You cannot include religion into science but you certainly can include science into religion. You just need to know the boundaries for each. If you've tried and failed then your religion is not good enough. Or you know nothing about your religion, or ANY religion. You think people are fools? Theists who make falsifiable real-world claims for their religion are fools for making them outside their religion. Eg creationists. It's their problem that science falsifies them, not ours. |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:05:42 -0500, Maleki
wrote: wrote in : Richard Alexander wrote: 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. Neither of you know what you're talking about. You cannot include religion into science but you certainly can include science into religion. You just need to know the boundaries for each. If you've tried and failed then your religion is not good enough. Or you know nothing about your religion, or ANY religion. You think people are fools? Theists who make falsifiable real-world claims for their religion are fools for making them outside their religion. Eg creationists. It's their problem that science falsifies them, not ours. |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
"Bob White" wrote in message news:ruURa.90117$ye4.65151@sccrnsc01...
"Jeff Young" wrote in message m... "Bob White" wrote in message news:jIHRa.84306$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 That what Th- th- th- that's all folks. snip Fallacies of Ignoratio Elenchi and Argumentum ad Nauseum Septic remains the completely tongue-tied, mendacious, confused, fallacious, and discredited old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism. Jeff |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
"Jeff Young" wrote in message ... "Bob White" wrote in message news:ruURa.90117$ye4.65151@sccrnsc01... "Jeff Young" wrote in message m... "Bob White" wrote in message news:jIHRa.84306$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 That what Th- th- th- that's all folks. [unsnip] 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 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?
"Bob White" wrote in message news:BJTSa.101044$OZ2.20188@rwcrnsc54...
[snip] 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. To search for? You mean, you can't find something without knowing what it is? 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. 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"? I already gave you one obstacle that would prevent you from you from using the scientific method; the object of your investigation has to be accessible. Now, I will further illustrate the futility of your proposal. Our Universe contains matter and energy. Some of this matter is barely detectable to us. Neutrinos are just one of these ghostly particles. Every day, many billions of neutrinos pass through your body, without a trace. But, neutrinos are not the most difficult particles to detect. There are particles of strange matter that may amount to several tons of mass, but which can pass completely through Earth almost as easily as neutrinos. But now suppose that there are still more exotic objects out there, such as matter that cannot interact either electromagnetically (similar to neutrons) or through the interactions with which we are familiar. Indeed, suppose there is another state of being that is neither matter nor energy. The Universe could be filled with objects that we cannot detect, because they don't interact with matter. The scientific method cannot examine objects that it cannot detect. 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: No, what you present is the logical theorum that you are testing. That does not tell us how you will actually detect these ETs. Failing detection, you cannot begin your analysis. But, what are you looking for? You never defined what attributes ET has that you can observe. An electromagnetic signal? It would be a shame if they aren't producing one. A spectral fingerprint of complex organic compounds? Too bad if ET isn't organic. If ET is not accessible, if he is not detectable by you, then your science cannot begin to analyze him. [snip] |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
"Bob White" wrote in message news:BJTSa.101044$OZ2.20188@rwcrnsc54...
"Jeff Young" wrote in message ... "Bob White" wrote in message news:ruURa.90117$ye4.65151@sccrnsc01... "Jeff Young" wrote in message m... "Bob White" wrote in message news:jIHRa.84306$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 That what Th- th- th- that's all folks. That what Th- th- th- th- that's all folks. snip Fallacy of Argumentum ad Nauseum Septic remains the completely fallacious, mendacious, ridiculous, and discredited old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism. Jeff |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
wrote in message ... In article , "Jeff Utz" writes: 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. So...maths is not science? -- Robert Bronsing Can't you see? It all makes perfect sense, expressed in dollars and cents, pounds, shillings and pence (R. Waters) |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
wrote in message ... In article , "Jeff Utz" writes: 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. So...maths is not science? -- Robert Bronsing Can't you see? It all makes perfect sense, expressed in dollars and cents, pounds, shillings and pence (R. Waters) |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
wrote in message ... In article , "Jeff Utz" writes: 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. So...maths is not science? -- Robert Bronsing Can't you see? It all makes perfect sense, expressed in dollars and cents, pounds, shillings and pence (R. Waters) |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
"Bronsing" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... In article , "Jeff Utz" writes: 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. So...maths is not science? The only way that numbers come into play concerning existential propositions is that the only reasonable presumption concerning the proposition, "X exists" is the null, "There is no X." 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 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?
"Bronsing" wrote in message ...
wrote in message ... In article , "Jeff Utz" writes: 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. So...maths is not science? -- Robert Bronsing Read : Karl R. Popper: "The Logic of Sientific Discovery" London 1959 .... Itīs a translation from "Logik der Forschung" Wien 1934 . Itīs basical a skeptical approach to human knowledge ..."I know, that I donīt know nothing" Sokrates and ..." Much worse for the truth than lies are convictions . Manfred Hilpert - manhil. Can't you see? It all makes perfect sense, expressed in dollars and cents, pounds, shillings and pence (R. Waters) |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
In article , "Bronsing" writes:
wrote in message ... In article , "Jeff Utz" writes: 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. So...maths is not science? Actually, no. Math creates its own worlds, science studies the observable one we have. Math deduces outcomes from premises defined to be true. Science observes outcomes and attempts to induce the premises. 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 RydTa.108914$OZ2.21460@rwcrnsc54,
"Bob White" wrote: The only way that numbers come into play concerning existential propositions is that the only reasonable presumption concerning the proposition, "X exists" is the null, "There is no X." Null : of, being, or relating to zero www.m-w.com (as in, "There are no ETs.") Thus, the only reasonable presumption concering the proposition "Septic's knowledge of logic exists" is ... |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
Bronsing wrote:
wrote in message ... In article , "Jeff Utz" writes: 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. So...maths is not science? No. -- "Just power derives from the consent of the governed." Iraqis have not consented to any American power over them. It is understandable they treat Americans like Redcoats. -- The Iron Webmaster, 2766 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter