Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
In article ,
Uncle Al wrote: 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? 1) Is M-theory testable? No. 2) Do high temp ceramic supercons have associated theory? No. Is M-theory science? No, its current status is that of mathematics. Science requires empirical constraint. Are high temp supercons science? Sure! Science does not demand theoretical modeling. Classical biology is the archetype of collected facts with no unifying basis. DNA analysis eventually appeared. Biology did not change its status as a science - but it did become predictive given a model. MBA domination of funding carefully erected the hallucination that research has a PERT chart and guaranteed results. 98% of that result is journals bursting with Least Publishable Units and a flood of second-rate MS and PhDs whose disciplines cannot absorb them. 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." This then justifies the MBA system. See? It works! Bullshit. It is a disaster. Funding is funneled to safely scientifically unproductive senior faculty who have eaten their brains. They voluminously publish papers and disgorge second rate degreed personnel. The statistics roll and MBAs get performance bonuses. Young faculty starves because its ideas are "too risky" to fund. Anybody can do a parameterized discounted cashflow/return on investment sheaf of scenarios and prove beyond argument that young faculty should not be funded at all - certainly not until they establish themselves as being safely, acceptably productive. It might be even worse than that Uncle Al. Over the past few days here in Oz (the place, not the man) the airwaves have been full of assertions that scientific creativity and accomplishment cease on marriage. Given that so many young blokes and sheilas now shack up at a relatively early age, will this further reduce prospects for future human invention; or does it require the formality of wedded bliss to stiffle discovery? Bottom line: Basic resarch should be abolished and its funding redirected into higher-yielding investments. With no need for such research, there is no need for its personnel and its infrastructure to be maintained or created in the first place. Downsizing of science with concomittant substantially increased oversight to optimize what remains should be a national priority. Uncle Al says, "The goal of Accounting is to value a corporation for liquidiation; but corporations are not run to be liquidated." Cheers, Phred. -- LID |
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 |