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

"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.

"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.

(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

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."

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."

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."

"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

"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

"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

"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."

Yes.

"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. ...

---

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"

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"