Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
"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. |
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 |