146d
So to clear up a few points:
* a scientific theory is not idle speculation
* a scientific theory needs to explain all (or at leats the vast majority) of observations.
* scientific theory needs to be able to forecast the result of experiments succesfully.
* any scientific theory needs to be formulated thus that it can be falsified.
* nay scientific theory will vanish if a better (simpler, explains also seldom results, ...) theory comes up.
146d
@Ponderable
And Carl Popper put in his two cents worth, it is not a theory if it is not falsifiable.
146d
@sonhouse saidThat would be point four in my original post
@Ponderable
And Carl Popper put in his two cents worth, it is not a theory if it is not falsifiable.
145d
1 edit
@Ponderable saidI would dispute your fifth point. Sometimes competing theories hold the field for a while, and one which was once disconfirmed may return under a slightly different interpretation or with better observational data to support it. Aristarchus' helio-centric theory of the solar system being a case in point.
So to clear up a few points:
* a scientific theory is not idle speculation
* a scientific theory needs to explain all (or at leats the vast majority) of observations.
* scientific theory needs to be able to forecast the result of experiments succesfully.
* any scientific theory needs to be formulated thus that it can be falsified.
* nay scientific theory will vanish if a better (simpler, explains also seldom results, ...) theory comes up.
Point two needs to be delimited to some specifiable domain, such as genetics, or celestial bodies, or geology. There is no 'theory of everything.'
@sonhouse saidI never called him Shirley.
@moonbus
As to point # 2, He was surely talking about a specific discipline, not a theory of everything.
Slight off topic here, but I'm immersed in a good book, "What Is Life? How Chemistry Becomes Biology", by Addy Pross, Oxford University Press. Fine book, bridging two disciplines, chemistry and biology. I highly recommend it; detailed enough to satisfy scientists, plain enough to be understandable to anyone with an education (by which I do not mean home-schooled in Kentucky).
He explains how life can and very probably did come from not-life, not in one swell foop, of course, but in gradual stages, and explains the stages very clearly: auto-catalysation (a chemical reaction which is self-sustaining so long as there are raw ingredient to fuel it) being one of the crucial stages. Such reactions can be triggered in a test tube, and they are not uncommon nature. He gives examples....
{Psssst, don't tell KellyJay.}
144d
@moonbus saidIt won't vanish directly, I shoud maybe have formulated an "eventually" in there. There is the famus quote: Adherents of a beloved theory are often not converted. Eventually they die out.
I would dispute your fifth point. Sometimes competing theories hold the field for a while, and one which was once disconfirmed may return under a slightly different interpretation or with better observational data to support it. Aristarchus' helio-centric theory of the solar system being a case in point.
Point two needs to be delimited to some specifiable domain, such as genetics, or celestial bodies, or geology. There is no 'theory of everything.'
144d
@Ponderable saidWell then, how about this: a question is not answered when it has been answered, but when it no longer needs to be asked. No one needs to ask about retro-grade planetary motions anymore; in Galileo‘s time, people did need to ask this, and they needed an answer. That no one even has to ask anymore is what shows that the question has been put to bed, so to speak, and that one theory has replaced another one.
It won't vanish directly, I shoud maybe have formulated an "eventually" in there. There is the famus quote: Adherents of a beloved theory are often not converted. Eventually they die out.
144d
@moonbus saidIndeed that a question makes no sense anymore can the direct effect of a new theory superseeding old views.
Well then, how about this: a question is not answered when it has been answered, but when it no longer needs to be asked. No one needs to ask about retro-grade planetary motions anymore; in Galileo‘s time, people did need to ask this, and they needed an answer. That no one even has to ask anymore is what shows that the question has been put to bed, so to speak, and that one theory has replaced another one.
The planets still seem to move backwards as seen from earth, however the explanation is rather straightforward.
A superseeded question is: "What is the weight of phlogiston?".
144d
@Ponderable saidGood example.
Indeed that a question makes no sense anymore can the direct effect of a new theory superseeding old views.
The planets still seem to move backwards as seen from earth, however the explanation is rather straightforward.
A superseeded question is: "What is the weight of phlogiston?".
Also, some entire branches of science drop out as pseudo-science or quackery, such as phrenology.
This too is part of scientific method, the constant re-assessment of putative truths and assumptions. Even the most basic assumptions may be questionable (e.g., causality at quantum levels). There is a kind of self-correcting recursion about it missing from other disciplines.
