Science and Technology news... :: View topic - RR Wheat - but who wants it? (was GM German Wheat Trials...

Mike Ruskai · Guest

On 13 Jul 2003 20:43:01 -0700, Richard Alexander wrote:

[quote]Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<e612hv8at2a3usqevlctubkqmuik5v1r8l@Pern.rk>...

[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?
[/quote]
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.

Bob White · Guest

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:beudr6$bcc$3@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
[quote]In article <d8fbbe2d.0307131943.4a0aa485@posting.google.com>,
Richard Alexander <pooua@aol.com> wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<e612hv8at2a3usqevlctubkqmuik5v1r8l@Pern.rk>...

[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.
[/quote]

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
email MarcusJohn@aol.com

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. ...

---

Jim Webster · Guest

"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:beuli5$8t0fg$1@ID-
[quote]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[/quote]
stifles the criminal urge as well, so we shall perhaps be uninventive but
honest

Jim Webster

Nokia · Guest

On 14 Jul 2003 10:31:50 -0700, pooua@aol.com (Richard Alexander)
wrote:

[quote]
I think we should at least settle this question; Can an hypothesis,
theory, principle, claim or statement be scientific if it is not
testable?
[/quote]
Well that>s easy.

Hypothesis: Yes. Hypotheses can be anything.
Theory: Yes. It>s just the hypothesis that fits the data best.
Principle: Not part of scientific method.
Statement: Ditto.

--
Highpriest in the Church Of The Invisible Pink Unicorn

Richard Alexander · Guest

"Jeremy" <cfgauss@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<LYqQa.56152$Ph3.6037@sccrnsc04>...
[quote]"Richard Alexander" <pooua@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d8fbbe2d.0307131943.4a0aa485@posting.google.com...

Uhg... Something scientific *must* be testable, by definition. Learn how to
do twelve seconds of googling. Take your ADD meds.
[/quote]
In light of the other replies so far on this thread, I wish I had also
asked for the background of the responder.

Torsten Brinch · Guest

On 14 Jul 2003 12:07:59 -0700, jtnospam@yahoo.com (jitney) wrote:

[quote]So you are whining and bleating again. Instead, why don>t you ask your
faggot lover to sissy spank and bitch slap you into grateful
submission, and leave this science forum <snip
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[/quote]

Again, that is a misunderstanding. sci.agriculture is for
discussion of any topic related to agriculture, by charter,
and by year-old practice.

Eric Pepke · Guest

pooua@aol.com (Richard Alexander) wrote in message news:<d8fbbe2d.0307131943.4a0aa485@posting.google.com>...
[quote]I think we should at least settle this question; Can an hypothesis,
theory, principle, claim or statement be scientific if it is not
testable?
[/quote]
It>s important to distinguish between a hypothesis and a theory.

A hypothesis must be testable, in the extremely broad sense that
there must be some way to look at nature and compare it to
the hypothesis such that the hypothesis can be declared
consistent with all available evidence or not.

A theory, however, is a kind of logical and rational tool. It
takes a set of input statements and uses logic, reason,
mathematics, etc. to get a set of output statements.
The output statements should be usable as hypotheses.
If an output statement, used as a hypothesis, is
inconsistent with nature, then either 1) one or more
of the input statements is wrong, or 2) the reasoning
in the theory is wrong.

It is a perfectly valid scientific use of a theory to construct
one when the input statements are difficult and impractical
to test directly. The main value of the theory is then to
transform the difficult statements into easy ones.

For example, in the theory of quantum electrodynamics,
the input statement is a concept called an amplitude.
QED theory consists almost entirely of rules for working
with these amplitudes resulting in something that can
be used as the probability of an event happening. The
output statements of QED, the predictions that can be used
as hypotheses, can all be tested and have been tested to
a fairly high degree. However, this amplitude thingie
has never been detected and may in principle be impossible
to detect. If some of the predictions of QED did not work
out, then we would have to abandon the notion of the
amplitude. So far, they all do, so we keep it. It works
nicely, and the mathematics is not too hard, so we
consider it a decent model. Whether it really and truly
"exists," at some deep sort-of philosophical level, is
not a scientific question.

A so-called "theory" would be useless in science if
none of the output statements were testable, Such a
thing shouldn>t be called a "scientific theory," possibly
not even a "theory" at all.

A "principle" in science is usually one of these inputs to
a theory. For example, consider Poincare>s principle of
relativity, that there can be no way of telling whether you
are stopped or moving in a straight line except by judging
your motion relative to something else. This is, of course,
falsifiable, at least conceivably. If, tomorrow, someone
makes a device that somehow manages to do this, then
we>d have to give it up. However, after the null result of
the Michelson-Morley experiment, nobody has any clue
how to test it any better, and it almost seems intuitively
obvious. However, it>s one of the input statements to
Einstein>s Special Theory of Relativity, which makes
predictions that we can test pretty easily.

"Claim" and "statement" are not well defined terms and
could easily be applied to hypotheses, theories, or data.

Steve Harris · Guest

<meron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:IGEQa.16$Y4.8122@news.uchicago.edu...
[quote]In article <1058187149.295801@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au>,
"Joe Bugeja" <bugs007@ozonline.com.au> 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.
[/quote]

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?

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?

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. Beware making
fun of science fiction as "science fantasy."

Unless of course it contains time machines, FTL drives,
force-field "shields", antigravity, Wesley Crusher, or
workable libertarian utopias. Then it>s okay to laugh all
you like. <g>.

SBH

Steve Harris · Guest

"Jim Webster" <Jim@feeswerve.spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:beuodi$8g8$4@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
[quote]
"Phred" <ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com> 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
[/quote]

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.

SBH

Mike Dubbeld · Guest

"Richard Alexander" <pooua@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d8fbbe2d.0307140912.235a61c2@posting.google.com...
[quote]"Mike Dubbeld" <miike@erols.com> wrote in message
news:<bettk7$st$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...
"Richard Alexander" <pooua@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d8fbbe2d.0307131943.4a0aa485@posting.google.com...
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:<e612hv8at2a3usqevlctubkqmuik5v1r8l@Pern.rk>...

[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.
[/quote]
Moving from the particular to the general must preceed its converse in
all cases. There would be no general if there were no particulars.
Moreover, there is not a single thing you can imagine that is general.
No one ever saw a 'one' before. One is an abstract idea which does not
grow on trees or have any spatiotemporal existence whatsoever. There are
innumerable examples of 'one' but there is nothing you can imagine that
is not something that is not simply a representation/example of the
abstract notion of 'one.' All words are generalizations and all
generalizations can not be imagined. I did not say conceived. You can
imagine a house by imagining an instance of a *particular* house in your
mind. However no one ever saw a 'house.' House is a generalization of
houses. But it is not a group of houses. Only ever examples of houses
can be recalled from memory. You can not visualize a 1000-sided polygon
either. But you can conceive of the idea of such a thing being possible.
Big difference.

Blueprints and computer models are used to construct ships. But if there
were no ships to begin with there would be no blueprints or ships. In
other words blueprints are generalizations - but they had to come from
somewhere. It can be argued for example that the Pythagorean Theorem was
true before the universe came into being and will be true when it is
gone. But without triangle forms to begin with, there would be no such
thing. There must be a universe and a perceiver to acquire a
generalization of a Pythagorean Theorem.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]
I drew the distinction above on repeatable vs testable events. The Big
Bang is not repeatable. But it is indirectly testable. The Big Bang is
an instance of a class of events that fall into this category. Whether
you call something testable if it is a repeatable event is questionable.
How much theory is allowed to be stuck between observable events? The
more complex the theory (TOE), the less testable it becomes.
Traditionally physics observes phenomena and then looks for a
mathematical law for it. But now it appears theorists using mathematics
take the lead to construct theories mathematically and then seek to test
them? If you form a hypothesis you have faith in your hypothesis until
it is tested. A Christian could argue they have a hypothesis that Jesus
will return and has faith in it until the event arrives..... If you
think thats funny, consider this --

'Because the hyperspace theory has opened up new, profound links between
physics and abstract mathematics, some people have accused scientists of
creating a new theology based on mathematics; that is, we have rejected
the mythology of religion, only to embrace an even stranger religion
based on curved space-time, particle symmetries, and cosmic expansions.
While priests may chant incantations in Latin that hardly anyone
understands, physicists chant arcane superstring equations that even
fewer understand. The "faith" in an all-powerful God is now replaced by
"faith" in quantum theory and general relativity. WHen scientists
protest that our mathematical incantations can be checked in the
laboratory, the response is that Creation cannot be measured in the
laboratory, and hence these abstract theories like superstring theory
can never be tested.' Hyperspace Michio Kaku p330

Do you have faith in your equations? Are you willing to wait billions of
years to test it to see if the universe will indeed collapse or expand
forever? I guess that is much like a Christian waiting for the return of
Jesus with his faith :)

If plots of
[quote]bubble gum sales as a function of meteors correlates testably, that
would be an amazing coincidence!
[/quote]
My background is engineering where it is common knowledge this is called
'bubblegum correlation.' You can plot on an X and Y axis anything your
little heart desires. There may be a high correlation shown between the
2 events. However, no one would believe bubblegum sales are a function
of meteroites (who knows mayby astronomers chew a lot of bubblegum when
they stay up all night looking for meteors. Think thats funny? The
Pentagon is tight-lipped on their assessement of hostilities in the
world. However, it is no secret that the seriousness of a crisis at any
given time is measured by the number of cars in the parking lot and the
number of pizza deliveries for all-nighters!
Another example of this is analyzing traffic noise in terms of tuba wave
components. What do tuba waves have to do with traffic noise? Nothing.
But components of sound can be shown to be found in traffic noise. Just
like if you look at your left hand long enough you will discover what is
wrong with it...... :)

[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Doesn>t matter. Lots of things are not testable. Historical things are
not testable. Thery are one-time events. There has never once been a
theory in physics that has been tested except to x number of places past
the decimal. The universe prohibits theory matching experiment in all
cases. Friction, less than round spheres etc. The only thing you know,
or ever will know (as a mind) are agreements/trade-offs of things. It is
not possible for any 2 people to ever experience the same thing. Nor is
it possible for the same person (mind) to experience the same thing from
instant to instant. I challenge you to tell me of a single thing that
you know that is not the result of agreement. This is a trival piece of
metaphysics.

[quote]
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..."
[/quote]
Carl Hempel a Logical Positivist answered that question by saying that
what makes something scientific is if has a scientific explanation. So
we move from whether an enterprise is scientific to whether an
enterprise can provide a scientific explanation. His 'Nomological
Deductive Model of a Scientific Explanation' says that if a phenomena or
event is an instance of universal law known to be true it is a
full-fledged scientific explanation. Well how do you know if this is the
case? Falsifiability arose out of the flames of Logical Positivism as a
failure. But Falsifiablity itself has problems as well. Empiricism is
not used in mathematics or logic. Falsifiablity assumes empirical
testing.

Logic and reason are not holy ground. Every criminal can justify their
crime. 'They deserved to die.' So can insane people. When in a mental
institution, a women was found bending over at the waist suddenly and
then jerking her head up and down at random intervals. When asked what
she was doing, she said she was 'queen of the birds.' Perfectly
acceptable behavior for a queen of the birds. There are many, many other
examples.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]
That was and is not the issue. The issue is the model to which these
other enterprises aspire to. For instance, psychology 50 years ago
aspired to be scientific as today. However there were no covering laws
or equations to explain why Jack is constantly late for work. B.F.
Skinner an idiot empiricist of the worst sort resolved the issue of how
psychology was to gain scientific credibility by imposing the erroneous
notion that all psychological activities could be explained as a result
of environment. You are the product of your environment. You, do not
(let alone animals) have a mental life. As a result of this, empirical
psycholgy was the only sort that got funding for projects cause all
universities wanted scientific psychology departments. A 50-year rein of
Skinarian terror followed.

This baloney is now gone from psychology. While Behaviorism has its
place, it is not a be all end all anymore. The point is that the
Descartes model of a skyscrapper - Foundationalism was used as the basis
of things being scientific. But Foundationalism is based on the notion
of causal explanations and parts of psychology and other things do not
have causal explanations so Foundationalism was the wrong model from
square one. (except clinical psychology). Foundationalism was the wrong
project for attempting to explain psychological events. Today this is
understood but in this NG it is highly likely that empiricism is a god
on many accounts. Quine basically drove the final nail in the lid on
distinctions between physics and metaphysics as an outgrowth of
Wittgenstein and language. (don>t run for the tar and feathers yet.) Due
to the involvement of language in explanations of any sort it is
technically impossible to distinguish a scientific explanation from any
other. Practically, it is possible because all reality known to the mind
is based on agreements of minds to begin with. But this is
empirical/statistical vote - statistical reality. I can easily give an
example but this is getting to be a little long -
Metalanguage/witchdoctor example.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]
That leaves explanations of the Big Bang out as well as the creation of
life on earth.

On Logic and Critical Thinking this has recently surfaced. David
Zarefsky teaches a course on Argumentation that shows that the consensus
of an audience using critical judgement skills is used when decision
making under uncertainty (inductive methods vs deductive methods) is
required and time is limited. Informal logic (think statistics) is used
for this basis where the solution is not merely the rearrangement of the
premises(deduction)/new information arises from the answer to a problem.
When we 'bounce an idea off someone' this is what we do. If it holds
water at least with someone else it is a reality check on us. By far,
nearly everything we know arises by this means and this means is
LPMNCF/informal logic/induction/statistics/empirical reality/reasons
explanations. But far more interesting to me is that Zarefsky appears
unaware that his course on Argumentation fulfills a tremendous void
based on the fact that people in the field of science usually know how
to make something scientific by virtue of causal explanations - F = MA.
The covering law method of deduction - this makes it scientific. But if
asked to justify something when casual explanations are not possible, it
is likely that any other means will be called non-scientific. But this
would not be true at all because statistics is based on sample
sizes/uncertainty but it can and is used in science extensively. I am
saying that few would be able to identify it as informal
logic/induction. Nothing in the universe can be tested enough times to
determine if it is true. Therefore all F = MA laws are based on
statistics as well. Again the belief in something is true until proven
guilty/otherwise. Hence the value of falsifiability. All knowledge
whatsoever held by the mind is relative and based on agreement with
others.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Skinarian acid testing retarded psychology for 50 years. Sorry for so
much on this subject. Actually I just stopped in to sci.physics to find
out what happened to George Hammond. He said he was going to have a book
out but I have not heard a peep from Mr. Sunshine in a long time.... :)

If you want to see some eye-openers on abstract objects check out
http://mally.stanford.edu/theory.html
by Edward Zalta. Although his material is impressive, it is clearly
western and limited as it has nothing cohesive as an end goal/purpose.
Much like firing speed of light bullets at particles to see what
happens.... in accelerators. :)

Mike Dubbeld

[quote]
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.[/quote]

Steve Harris · Guest

"Eric Pepke" <epepke@acm.org> wrote in message
news:ef37f531.0307141356.27be1077@posting.google.com...
[quote]pooua@aol.com (Richard Alexander) wrote in message
news:<d8fbbe2d.0307131943.4a0aa485@posting.google.com>...
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>s important to distinguish between a hypothesis and a
theory.[/quote]

It>s not. Historically the two have been used nearly
synonymously. Only recently has there has been a tendency
to graduate "hypotheses" to "theories" when they have been
better tested. But the difference is not very qualitative,
and there is great argument at some point what to call any
new scientific idea.

All theories begin as hypotheses, then at some later point,
everyone agrees to call them theories. Sometimes at the
moment the hypothesis is first made, it has a lot of
evidential support. Other times, almost none.

Historically one can see confusion in the word. There have
been "theories" which were never really well tested in our
modern sense, and which were so badly put together that it>s
hard to really call them theories. The phlogiston theory of
combustion. The humoral theory of disease. On the other
hand, there have been hypotheses which got called "theory"
immediately, even before testing, like Einstein>s theory of
(special) relativity. Einstein hypothesized that the laws of
physics should be the same for all inertial observers, but
at the time he made this conjecture, nobody had come close
to comprehensively testing it. It got to be a "theory"
immediately because it was so intellectually beautiful. The
same was even more true for general relativity theory, when
Einstein announced that a decade later.

SBH

Jeff Utz · Guest

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

Guest

In article <bev9d7$mm2$1@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> writes:
[quote]
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:IGEQa.16$Y4.8122@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <1058187149.295801@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au>,
"Joe Bugeja" <bugs007@ozonline.com.au> 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?
[/quote]
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".
[quote]
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?
[/quote]
We call it "scientific speculation" or something of the sort.
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
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.

[quote]Beware making fun of science fiction as "science fantasy."

[/quote]
Good point

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

Bob White · Guest

"Jeff Utz" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bevev1$dir@library2.airnews.net...
[quote]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.
[/quote]

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
email MarcusJohn@aol.com

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. ...

---

Robert J. Kolker · Guest

Jeff Utz wrote:
[quote]
Creationism, chiropractic & homeopathy

[/quote]
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


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Agriculture Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 164, 165, 166 Next
Page 3 of 166