>That's the old "repeatability" gaff, that I've heard so repeatedly my eyes
>are crossing. It's been used primarily by creationists to claim (falsely)
>that evolution and creation are equally unscientific because you cannot
>repeat origins.
Walter, repeatibility is crucial to testability. If you make an assertion
you claim is testable, then whoever performs the test, if he performs it
correctly, ought to obtain the same result. Drop repeatibilty and just
hammer away at testability if you want -- you still have to show that you
have a test that will produce consistent (repeatible) results when it is
applied, regardless of the philosopical bent of the person who applies the
test. Of course the test has to be appropriate for the subject matter --
obviously a test that says you must repeat 3 billion years of history is
not a test. Don't detour down that route. I'm as weary of it as you are.
>>The supernatural is excluded because it is assumed to be nonrepeatible.
>
>No, repeatability is not required. The supernatural was excluded from
>science because it was assumed to be untestable. My book overthrows that
>assumption. The supernatural sometimes has a testable foundation, and under
>those circumstances it can be scientific.
>
>>Walter, if you claim a supernatural occurrence -- an act of God, say -- is
>>testable, are you not implicitly claiming that it is possible for an
>>experimenter to establish conditions under which God will do something,
>>predictably? And doesn't that amount to claiming that under these
>>conditions it is possible for a human experimenter to control God, however
>>slightly?
>
>Bill, if you claim a Piltdown fraud -- an act of a hoaxer, say -- is
>testable, are you not implicitly claiming that it is possible for an
>experimenter to establish conditions under which a hoaxer will do something,
>predictably? And doesn't that amount to claiming that under these
>conditions it is possible for a human experimenter to control the hoaxer,
>however slightly?
If you substitute words for the words of an original statement, and the
words substituted are the cause of the statement becoming incoherent, you
cannot claim that the original statement is incoherent.
sigh...
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)