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.

For a theory to be scientific, at least two criteria have to be met:

1) It has to be based on reliable data.

2) It has to be falsifiable.

Examples of "theories" that are not falifiable:

Creationism, chiropractic & homeopathy

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".

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"

"Jeff Utz" wrote in message
...
For a theory to be scientific, at least two criteria have to be met:

1) It has to be based on reliable data.

2) It has to be falsifiable.


You seem to be confusing theory with working hypothesis concerning the
theory, old boy. It is not the theory ("ETs may in reality exist" for
example) that has to be falsifiable, it is the null hypothesis that does.

Nobody ever has to prove a theory is false. The burden of proof is always on
the affirmative, and can never be sifted to the negation. The null
hypothesis stands forever unless knocked down by logically satisfactory
evidence of the hypothetical thing.


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. ...

---

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.

It is like tuning the mast of a boat. It is applied Newtonian physics
and it works for people like me who have lumbego.

Chiropractic will do nothing to treat cancer or asthma caused by
allergic reactions. No competent chiropractor would claim otherwise.

Bob Kolker

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. In reality, something is scientific if it is observed
under the scientific method, which includes testability. Very few
things qualify, but that should not be taken to mean that everything
else is untrustworthy or false.

There may be some gray area. Is Engineering a Science? I would
generally say it is not, because Engineering is the application of
knowledge, not the exploration for additional knowledge. Even so, it
is quite possible or even likely that a cutting-edge engineering
project will require real, old-fashioned Science to reach a successful
conclusion. And, is Engineering scientific? Well, it can be--though
Engineering can also be intuitive. Intuitive projects are not
scientific, at least partly because they are not quantified (and I
distinguish between intuition and mathematical talent, as Gauss is
said to have possessed).

"Richard Alexander" wrote in message
om...

In light of the other replies so far on this thread, I wish I had also
asked for the background of the responder.

Everyone else has said the same thing I have...

A theory *must* make predictions, that's what a theory is, predictions must
be testable. As I said, *by definition* a theory *must be* testable. If
it's not, it's not a theory.

"Steve Harris" wrote in message
...

Well, Albert Einstein got laid, and indeed married, well
before 1905. Erwin Shroedinger was not only married when he
produced wave mechanics at the age of 39, but was on holiday
at a ski resort with his mistress of the moment. Apparently
he did very little skiing.

I can see how she might have helped him with wave mechanics, but I would
have been worried if it was as a result of her that he came up with his cat

Jim Webster


SBH

(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"): If you accept
that definition, then (by definition) a hypothesis MUST be falsifiable
to count as scientific. On the other hand, you may want to define
science some other way... but there haven't been any better
definitions I can think of.

In article 7gMQa.64455$N7.8250@sccrnsc03, "Jeremy" wrote:
"Richard Alexander" wrote in message
. com...

In light of the other replies so far on this thread, I wish I had also
asked for the background of the responder.

Everyone else has said the same thing I have...

A theory *must* make predictions, that's what a theory is, predictions must
be testable. As I said, *by definition* a theory *must be* testable. If
it's not, it's not a theory.

Of course .. it might not be testable yet ... or in fact, ever

Theories are just that - ideas. Some can be tested and some can't.

Bruce


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oook !
NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !

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

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.

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."

"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.

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.