Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
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? |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
"Richard Alexander" wrote in message om... 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? Rather speculative I would think as "scientific" only relates to exhibiting the methods or principles of science. However, one definition of science follows: 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. With the above evidence in mind I believe if someone expounded on a topic relating to a conclusion that conclusion should be testable. Hmmm, Yes. James Curts |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
|
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
|
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
"Richard Alexander" wrote in message
om... Uhg... Something scientific *must* be testable, by definition. Learn how to do twelve seconds of googling. Take your ADD meds. |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
"Richard Alexander" wrote 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 depends on how literal you are. For example, we can determine the dimension of the sun using certain scientific methods. We can test these methods under controlled conditions here on earth, but we can't fly out into space with a measuring tape and "test" their accuracy against more...errr... "conventional" means. |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
"Richard Alexander" wrote in message om... 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? The Big Bang can't be re-created/duplicated but there are indirect ways to test it. Many things don't fit anything except statistics/probability. There you have to go by the weight of the evidence. The notion of 'testable' is not a binary yes or no answer. It may be testable with a certain percent confidence level or have a certain correlation coefficient. On the other hand, you could plot bubble gum sales as a function of meteors seen in the southern hemisphere and might find a pretty good correlation...... :) This gets into sample size etc fast. Testable to how many places past the decimal point? In something called Late-Post-Modern-Non-Classical-Foundationalism (LPMNCF) a hypothesis or theory is innocent until proven guilty/is true if there appears to be no evidence and until such time as it is found not to be true. Just about everything you know is based on this idea. Instead of a scientific 'causal explanation' like F = MA with a 'Covering Law' LPMNCF explanations are based on 'reasons explanations.' Science is the only enterprise on the planet that is NOT required to provide reasons explanations. All other knowledge is based on this. Smith is not found guilty of murdering Jones by an equation. There may be circumstantial evidence based on scientific knowledge like ballistics and fingerprints that add up to weight of evidence one way or another but the jury is going to want more than that in many cases - they want to know Smith's motivation/reasons for killing Jones. When you tell someone that is a chair, - if it half way looks like it might be, chances are your idea will be accepted and the matter ended. You do not need to say the photons bouncing off the chair formed an image on the retina of my eye blah blah blah. LPMNCF is a response to the failure of Logical Positivism as a be all end all. Most things do not have scientific causal explanations. Things that make an event historical for instance do so because they are one-time events. They can not be empirically studied. You can not dress up a bunch of short guys with 3-cornered hats that like to stick their hands in their vest and conduct 'Battles of Waterloo.' Or the 2002 State of the Union address - one time events. Does that make one-time events not possible to be studied empirically? If you smoke a cigarette the smoke and ashes can not be put back into tobacco and paper again. So while smoking similar cigarettes is testable, repeated testing of a single cigarette is not. LPMNCF is based on a pyramid structure. If a few blocks are defective the whole pyramid does not fall down. But Classical Foundationalism (CF) is based on Descartes ground up approach of a skyscraper. A skyscrapper has a very strong foundation where a hundred floors may go straight up. If anything is wrong on a lower floor the whole thing could come down - much like if there was a theorem wrong in geometry - chances are your whole basis of math is flawed/defective. Test those ideas,,,, Mike Dubbeld |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
When Einstein raised relativity, it was not all immediately testable, that
came later. |
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." |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 03:58:38 GMT, "James Curts"
wrote: "Richard Alexander" wrote in message . com... 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? Rather speculative I would think as "scientific" only relates to exhibiting the methods or principles of science. However, one definition of science follows: 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. With the above evidence in mind I believe if someone expounded on a topic relating to a conclusion that conclusion should be testable. Hmmm, Yes. Indeed, looking at things along those lines, James, 'testable' would seem to put the bar too low. I'd raise it to 'tested' :-). To be sure, this would imply that a hypothesis is not in that sense of the word scientific, a scientific statement. |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
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. 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." -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net! |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
Torsten Brinch writes
Indeed, looking at things along those lines, James, 'testable' would seem to put the bar too low. I'd raise it to 'tested' :-). The usual word is 'falsifiable'. That is, you can devise an experiment to test it. Preferably lots of them. To be sure, this would imply that a hypothesis is not in that sense of the word scientific, a scientific statement. A hypothesis is an untested scientific statement. For some level of tested. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
Joe Bugeja writes
When Einstein raised relativity, it was not all immediately testable, that came later. 1) It 'explained' quite a few puzzling experimental results. 2) There was no counter experiment that contradicted it. At which point it was really a good hypothesis. 3) Various tests were devised that it explained very much better than competing hypotheses. When it slowly became a theory. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted. |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
Joe Bugeja wrote: When Einstein raised relativity, it was not all immediately testable, that came later. It was always testABLE, just not testED. There is a difference. If it were not at all testABLE, (like the theory that an invisible god may exist, since there is nothing specified to search for), then it could never have been testED. Please try to learn the difference, and please show how you know that an invisible god may in reality exist (if that is what you are driving at). Here is how the theory that "ETs (not in evidence) may exist" is being tested using the scientific method: 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. ... --- |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
On 13 Jul 2003 20:43:01 -0700, 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? Depends on what you mean by "testable". For a theory to be scientific, it must at least be falsifiable. Whether that's the same as "testable" or not is mostly a matter of semantics. -- - Mike Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail. |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
On 13 Jul 2003 20:43:01 -0700, 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? Depends on what you mean by "testable". For a theory to be scientific, it must at least be falsifiable. Whether that's the same as "testable" or not is mostly a matter of semantics. -- - Mike Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail. |
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 |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message ... 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. www.m-w.com Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal Pronunciation: -i-k&l Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/ Function: adjective Date: 1569 1 : originating in or based on observation or experience empirical data That is why scientists differentiate between : 1. universal, scientific (empirical) statements ("There is no X") because we can all observe, experience it when such statements are false, and 2. unscientific, metaphysical (non-empirical) statements ("X exists") because the only thing that falsifies any such statement is the universal, empirical statement "There is no X." See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_. And see this principle put in practice in the scientific method of investigation: 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. ... --- |
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 |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message ... 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. www.m-w.com Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal Pronunciation: -i-k&l Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/ Function: adjective Date: 1569 1 : originating in or based on observation or experience empirical data That is why scientists differentiate between : 1. universal, scientific (empirical) statements ("There is no X") because we can all observe, experience it when such statements are false, and 2. unscientific, metaphysical (non-empirical) statements ("X exists") because the only thing that falsifies any such statement is the universal, empirical statement "There is no X." See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_. And see this principle put in practice in the scientific method of investigation: 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. ... --- |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
Richard Alexander wrote in message om... 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? No hypothesis can be considered part of the scientific method if it is not fundamentally disprovable. greywolf42 ubi dubium ibi libertas |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
"Mike Dubbeld" wrote in message ...
"Richard Alexander" wrote in message om... 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? The Big Bang can't be re-created/duplicated but there are indirect ways to test it. You should not reference specific examples so soon, as it is likely to skew your thinking. One should go from principle to application; otherwise, I might call any story, "scientific," after the fact. Many things don't fit anything except statistics/probability. There you have to go by the weight of the evidence. The notion of 'testable' is not a binary yes or no answer. It may be testable with a certain percent confidence level or have a certain correlation coefficient. On the other hand, you could plot bubble gum sales as a function of meteors seen in the southern hemisphere and might find a pretty good correlation...... :) The term "testable" means that any random person who correctly performs the experiment would get similar (generally within 10%) results, that is, the results are universally repeatable. If plots of bubble gum sales as a function of meteors correlates testably, that would be an amazing coincidence! This gets into sample size etc fast. Testable to how many places past the decimal point? In something called Late-Post-Modern-Non-Classical-Foundationalism (LPMNCF) a hypothesis or theory is innocent until proven guilty/is true if there appears to be no evidence and until such time as it is found not to be true. I would have a difficult time accepting such a protocol, and you should, too. If I say, "There are little faeries who hide from people's sight, but who on occasion hide people's keys at night," you probably could not find the statement untrue. That is partly because the statement is untestable. Just about everything you know is based on this idea. Instead of a scientific 'causal explanation' like F = MA with a 'Covering Law' LPMNCF explanations are based on 'reasons explanations.' Science is the only enterprise on the planet that is NOT required to provide reasons explanations. All other knowledge is based on this. Smith is not found guilty of murdering Jones by an equation. There may be circumstantial evidence based on scientific knowledge like ballistics and fingerprints that add up to weight of evidence one way or another but the jury is going to want more than that in many cases - they want to know Smith's motivation/reasons for killing Jones. As it happens, the first class I took on Logic and Critical Thinking discussed the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," commonly used in courts of law. That we would discuss such a subject is not unusual, considering that the class I took was a required class for paralegal majors. But, what we learned is that "innocent until proven guilty" is one of the admitted departures from pure logic that the legal system uses. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not a logical way to find guilt or innocence, but our legal system uses it to bias the results in favor of protecting potentially-innocent accused. When you tell someone that is a chair, - if it half way looks like it might be, chances are your idea will be accepted and the matter ended. You do not need to say the photons bouncing off the chair formed an image on the retina of my eye blah blah blah. LPMNCF is a response to the failure of Logical Positivism as a be all end all. Most things do not have scientific causal explanations. I agree with your last sentence; "Most things do not have scientific causal explanations." However, that does not answer the question, "Is a concept scientific..." Things that make an event historical for instance do so because they are one-time events. They can not be empirically studied. This was also addressed in my logic class. It may come as a shock to the post-moderns, but not everything is or can be scientific. Historical events are--surprise!--History, not Science, and History is distinct from Science. If the post-moderns had their way, universities would have one department--Science--and everything that could take place on campus would be specializations of that one department. It isn't just the Humanities Department that complains of this mind-set; some scientists also complain about the mis-guided attempt by some people to see science as the only truth, or to turn everything into science. It has been suggested that Science is a victim of its own success. You can not dress up a bunch of short guys with 3-cornered hats that like to stick their hands in their vest and conduct 'Battles of Waterloo.' Or the 2002 State of the Union address - one time events. Does that make one-time events not possible to be studied empirically? If you smoke a cigarette the smoke and ashes can not be put back into tobacco and paper again. So while smoking similar cigarettes is testable, repeated testing of a single cigarette is not. Indeed, one-time events are neither scientific nor testable, another point made in my first class on Logic and Critical Thinking. LPMNCF is based on a pyramid structure. If a few blocks are defective the whole pyramid does not fall down. But, maybe they should. The search for truth should be rigorous. We should not be looking for survivers; we should be trying to kill them. The "acid test" should be difficult to pass. But Classical Foundationalism (CF) is based on Descartes ground up approach of a skyscraper. A skyscrapper has a very strong foundation where a hundred floors may go straight up. If anything is wrong on a lower floor the whole thing could come down - much like if there was a theorem wrong in geometry - chances are your whole basis of math is flawed/defective. Test those ideas,,,, Mike Dubbeld Thank you for your reply, Mike. |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
"Phred" wrote in message news:beuli5$8t0fg$1@ID- 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? this ran in the UK as well. Apparently the only advantage is that it also stifles the criminal urge as well, so we shall perhaps be uninventive but honest Jim Webster |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
|
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
|
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
In article ,
Richard Alexander wrote: (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message ... 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. I agree; a statement need only have the potential to be tested to be testable. This consideration can make it a bit tricky to say what is or isn't testable--or, more accurately, to inform certain idiots that their suggestion is wrong, for reasons that they can't or won't possibly comprehend or accept. String theories typically aren't testable due to technological and resource limitations. But they do make definite predictions that differ from those of other theories, predictions of observable things that could in principle be tested. 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. An experiment must be repeatable to be scientific. Can you repeat SN1987A? There are a lot of experiments or observations that can't or shouldn't be repeated, but we can still make some science out of it by repeating those we can, and understanding the multitude in a theoretical context. -- "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." |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
|
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
Mike Ruskai wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "testable". For a theory to be scientific, it must at least be falsifiable. Whether that's the same as "testable" or not is mostly a matter of semantics. For a theory to be useful it must make predictions, and is thereby testable and falsifiable. |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
Mike Ruskai wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "testable". For a theory to be scientific, it must at least be falsifiable. Whether that's the same as "testable" or not is mostly a matter of semantics. For a theory to be useful it must make predictions, and is thereby testable and falsifiable. |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
"Jeremy" wrote in message news:LYqQa.56152$Ph3.6037@sccrnsc04...
"Richard Alexander" wrote in message om... Uhg... Something scientific *must* be testable, by definition. Learn how to do twelve seconds of googling. Take your ADD meds. In light of the other replies so far on this thread, I wish I had also asked for the background of the responder. |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
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. |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
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. Examples of "theories" that are not falifiable: Creationism, chiropractic & homeopathy |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
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". 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" |
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. ... --- |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
Jeff Utz wrote: Creationism, chiropractic & homeopathy Chiropractic (the non nutty kind) is simply mechanical force applied to the vertebrata to re-allign them. I have used the services of a chiropractor over the years to do a re-alignment when my 4-th lumbar vertebrea decides to lean over and press on the nerves. It is like tuning the mast of a boat. It is applied Newtonian physics and it works for people like me who have lumbego. Chiropractic will do nothing to treat cancer or asthma caused by allergic reactions. No competent chiropractor would claim otherwise. Bob Kolker |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
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. In reality, something is scientific if it is observed under the scientific method, which includes testability. Very few things qualify, but that should not be taken to mean that everything else is untrustworthy or false. There may be some gray area. Is Engineering a Science? I would generally say it is not, because Engineering is the application of knowledge, not the exploration for additional knowledge. Even so, it is quite possible or even likely that a cutting-edge engineering project will require real, old-fashioned Science to reach a successful conclusion. And, is Engineering scientific? Well, it can be--though Engineering can also be intuitive. Intuitive projects are not scientific, at least partly because they are not quantified (and I distinguish between intuition and mathematical talent, as Gauss is said to have possessed). |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
"Richard Alexander" wrote in message
om... In light of the other replies so far on this thread, I wish I had also asked for the background of the responder. Everyone else has said the same thing I have... A theory *must* make predictions, that's what a theory is, predictions must be testable. As I said, *by definition* a theory *must be* testable. If it's not, it's not a theory. |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
"Steve Harris" wrote in message ... Well, Albert Einstein got laid, and indeed married, well before 1905. Erwin Shroedinger was not only married when he produced wave mechanics at the age of 39, but was on holiday at a ski resort with his mistress of the moment. Apparently he did very little skiing. I can see how she might have helped him with wave mechanics, but I would have been worried if it was as a result of her that he came up with his cat Jim Webster SBH |
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
|
Do Theories Have to be Testable to be Scientific?
In article 7gMQa.64455$N7.8250@sccrnsc03, "Jeremy" wrote:
"Richard Alexander" wrote in message . com... In light of the other replies so far on this thread, I wish I had also asked for the background of the responder. Everyone else has said the same thing I have... A theory *must* make predictions, that's what a theory is, predictions must be testable. As I said, *by definition* a theory *must be* testable. If it's not, it's not a theory. Of course .. it might not be testable yet ... or in fact, ever :) Theories are just that - ideas. Some can be tested and some can't. Bruce -------------------------------------------------------------------- Oook ! NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM ! |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter