Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
wrote in message ... 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". Why? It has lots of support, including emperical support. 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. Jeff 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" |
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 |