Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
In article ,
Richard Alexander wrote: Al Klein wrote in message ... [snip] The definition of "scientific" doesn't include "testable". I think we should at least settle this question; Can an hypothesis, theory, principle, claim or statement be scientific if it is not testable? It needn't be immediately testable with current technology and the resources humans are willing to put into it. Those are just practical considerations. But, among other qualities, a theory must say something definite about nature, must make concrete predictions of observables that will be either right or wrong. Theory aids the understanding, but science is fundamentally empirical. -- "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." |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
HBO, Tom Hanks stoop to "debunking JFK conspiracy theories" | Ponds | |||
Scientific name for Watermelon Radish? | Plant Science | |||
scientific method is a hoax? | Plant Science | |||
Testing new theories of logging and forest management, known as Adaptive Management Areas??????????? | alt.forestry | |||
EM Technology critics? More scientific background? | sci.agriculture |