From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Sat Oct 04 2003 - 14:12:00 EDT
I could read this as saying that when someone puts
forth a theory that we do not like, the we can
apply a falsifiability criterion to shoot a hole
in it. However, if one of our scientific theories
has a few warts ------ well heck nobody is perfect
:).
I think that a valid point was raised. If some
(extensive) C14 dating does not work, then one has
to explain it very clearly or else the technique
is indeed questionable.
Don Winterstein wrote:
> <?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace
> prefix="o" />Walter Hicks wrote in part: "...It
> is indeed fair to put scientific theories to the
>
> falsifiability test. If there is data to
> disprove the universality of a scientific
> notion,
> then it must be taken seriously. A scientific
> theory must be right 100% of the time - not
> "most" of the time." No scientific theory is
> always right. Disproving a theory also is often
> difficult or impossible. A theory that predicts
> precise quantitative results can be disproved
> easily if and when experiments don't yield the
> predicted results; but in practice it's often
> possible to modify or reinterpret theory so that
> it comes into agreement with data. It may be
> practically impossible to disprove some accepted
> theories that don't predict quantitative
> results. We would like our theories to be always
> right, but in practice we demand only that they
> embody the best available unifying principles.
> By "best" we mean most elegant, most widely
> applicable, etc. Newton's theory of gravity was
> not "right" about the orbit of Mercury, so
> physicists made ad hoc assumptions to bring it
> into agreement. Nevertheless, for a long time
> Newton's was the best gravity theory available
> and as such was widely if not universally
> accepted. Theories of less quantitative
> sciences (such as geology) at times cannot
> elegantly account for particular observations,
> but we accept them because they're the best we
> have. Long ago, as I was making the transition
> from physics to geophysics, a crusty old
> geophysicist explained to me the difference
> between physicists and geophysicists: "You
> physicists actually believe your models," he
> said. At the time I wasn't sure what he meant,
> but it's long since become clear: Our theories
> are not reality, and we put ourselves at risk if
> we start to believe they are. Don
>
>
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 04 2003 - 14:11:40 EDT