Re: Being falsifiable not required to be valid theory

Richard Forrest wrote:
> topmind wrote:
> > Neil W Rickert wrote:
> > > "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >
> > > >> >The Anthropic Principle may not be falsifiable either because we may
> > > >> >never be able to sample other universes, or at least all possible
> > > >> >universes that contribute to "probility space". We can never know if
> > > >> >there are yet other dimensions/realms that we have yet to
> > > >> >explore/discover. However, it is still a valid theory most would agree.
> > >
> > > >> The anthropic principle is a philosophic thesis. It is not a
> > > >> scientific theory.
> > >
> > > >Okay, I worded that poorly. Let's refer to the "multiple universe
> > > >theory" (MUT), based on AP, rather than AP itself. MUT is one possible
> > > >explanation for the "fine tuning" of the constants.
> > >
> > > OK. But MUT isn't a scientific theory either. At best it is
> > > a speculative hypothesis.
> > >
> >
> > Couldn't one say the same about Intel.Design and include it in the
> > science books as a "speculative hypothesis"?
>
> But it's not even a speculative hypothesis! It's no more than the
> assertion that 'Godimeananintelligentdesigner did it', backed up by a
> load of spurious mathematics intended to decieve and confuse which does
> not even test the hypothesis it claims to test!

The science books can mention that. For example, they could say, "even
if the alleged gaps in evolutionary theory were siginficant, gaps alone
do not necessarily imply a creator is the only altnerative."

In other words, the textbook may be a good place to point out the flaws
in ID. In fact, perhaps it should be in the first chapter on "What is
Science"? A definition of science and illustrations of what is *not*
science is at least as important as specific theories. The key is to
focus on the scientific *process*, and ID could make a great example to
test and explore the definition with students.

There do seem to be ways to work ID into textbooks without violating
church & state laws. The ID proponents just seem to be going about it
wrong. They need more skeptics like me on their staff :-)

>
> Astrology has much better claims to being a scientific hypothesis as it
> makes predictions which can be, and have been tested. As it has failed
> those tests, we know that it's a load of bollocks and for that reason
> don't include it in our scientific curriculum.

I don't think we can rule out the possibility that ID is testable. Just
because we cannot anticipate every possible kind of evidence or test in
advance does not mean it does not exist.

However, a textbook can point out that no known approach has been found
to *directly* test ID so far, other than showing alleged flaws in the
primary competitor.

>
> >
> > The usual counter argument seems to be that there is not enough room in
> > textbooks for "low-ranking theories". However, I have suggested that
> > textbooks should anticipate common questions and respond to them. The
> > primary purpose of a textbook is to teach. Ranking the strength of
> > theories/hypothesis should take a back seat to that goal.
> >
> > Too many scientists seem to focus on alleged problems of giving a
> > theory credibility by mentioning it at all. To me that is misdirected.
> > Focus on the students, not on protecting reputations of theories.
> >
> > ID is a weak theory/hypothesis and the textbooks can simply point out
> > why. I don't see the big deal about mentioning and responding to
> > something that is a common question.
> >
> > Teachers often say, "Don't be afraid to ask questions, even dumb ones".
> > Well, ID is a common, and perhaps dumb question, also; so let's just
> > respond to it in the book in the same spirit of teaching.
> >


-T-

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New knock to geometrical view of gravity
    ... GR textbook gives the wrong limit. ... But you were arrogant enough to say "this is ... Nothing is ever PROVED in science. ... scientists as myself. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ken Ham progress report
    ... Duane Gish is not an "eminent scientist". ... being believed gullibly by textbook publishers. ... Piltdown was accepted, with some reluctance, by scientists. ... cannot support his wild claims. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Piltdown Textbook
    ... very old textbook consider the textbooks that have come since that ... our understanding of the mechanisms of evolution, ... Piltdown was considered something of a peculiar outlier, ... The point is that scientists and textbook companies were fooled. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Faulty reasoning
    ... Circular reasoning. ... "scientists" who believe, maybe some sign-up sheet or poll. ... geology textbook that has Haeckel charts. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Antenna reception theory
    ... Many great scientists were textbook examples of O-C personalities. ... -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)