Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
"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 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. ... --- |
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 |