| Author |
Message
|
| Dishmaster |
 Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject: What must a scientific theory achieve? |
 |
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 313
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
|
With all the self-declared geniuses re-inventing physics I would like to start a discussion about: What is needed for a good theory?
Following the ideas of Karl Popper, I'd like to start off with:
1. If it applies to an already known phenomenon: It must describe, why it cannot be sufficiently explained with the commonly accepted theories.
2. The new theory must consist of well defined arguments. All expressions used must have a unique meaning.
3. It must clearly show, why it should be able to explain the phenomenon (instead).
4. It must give verifiable predictions, i.e. propose experiments or observations and predict their results.
5. It must give falsifiable predictions, i.e. predict results of measurements or observations that would rule out its validity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| marnixR |
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Isotope
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2584
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
any genuine, good, objective piece of science usually exhibits the following values :
1. it is internally coherent : there are no contradictions amongst its premises
2. it is externally consistent : it fits in with other bits of science that are known to be correct
3. it has unificatory power or consilience : it has explanatory power over a wide range of phenomena
4. it has predictive ability : necessary in order to be testable
5. it has predictive fertility : many rather than just a few predictions
6. it has simplicity : explains a lot using a small number of assumptions
Karl Popper's falsifiability usually is expressed in terms of items 1, 2 and 4
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SuperNatendo |
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 2:59 pm Post subject: Re: What must a scientific theory achieve? |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 518
Location: Nashville, TN USA
|
| Dishmaster wrote: |
With all the self-declared geniuses re-inventing physics I would like to start a discussion about: What is needed for a good theory?
Following the ideas of Karl Popper, I'd like to start off with:
1. If it applies to an already known phenomenon: It must describe, why it cannot be sufficiently explained with the commonly accepted theories.
2. The new theory must consist of well defined arguments. All expressions used must have a unique meaning.
3. It must clearly show, why it should be able to explain the phenomenon (instead).
4. It must give verifiable predictions, i.e. propose experiments or observations and predict their results.
5. It must give falsifiable predictions, i.e. predict results of measurements or observations that would rule out its validity. |
Wouldn't number five disprove your new theory?
5 should say:
It must give falsifiable predictions, i.e. predict results of measurements or observations that would rule out the validity of other theories.
_________________
“It’s no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.” - Mark Twain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Isotope
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2584
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
in other words, a scientific theory must in principle be capable of being proven wrong, i.e. there must be a way that you can TRY to prove it wrong
a theory that is always true is by definition not scientific : in essence the theory that explains everything actually explains nothing
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SuperNatendo |
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 518
Location: Nashville, TN USA
|
Ohhhhhhhhh!
Thats why science will never accept a theory to prove existence of God, because, by definition, God should not ever be proven wrong and can be used to explain everything, and, as far as scientific theories go this explains everything so it actually explains nothing!
<edit>
Not meant to take this thread off topic, just the only example I knew of where the theory attempts to explain everything.
_________________
“It’s no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.” - Mark Twain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Isotope
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2584
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
| SuperNatendo wrote: |
| Thats why science will never accept a theory to prove existence of God, because, by definition, God should not ever be proven wrong and can be used to explain everything, and, as far as scientific theories go this explains everything so it actually explains nothing! |
exactement, mon ami
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| William McCormick |
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject: Re: What must a scientific theory achieve? |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 1301
|
| Dishmaster wrote: |
With all the self-declared geniuses re-inventing physics I would like to start a discussion about: What is needed for a good theory?
Following the ideas of Karl Popper, I'd like to start off with:
1. If it applies to an already known phenomenon: It must describe, why it cannot be sufficiently explained with the commonly accepted theories.
2. The new theory must consist of well defined arguments. All expressions used must have a unique meaning.
3. It must clearly show, why it should be able to explain the phenomenon (instead).
4. It must give verifiable predictions, i.e. propose experiments or observations and predict their results.
5. It must give falsifiable predictions, i.e. predict results of measurements or observations that would rule out its validity. |
Unless you are going to go back to the neutron particle, forget rule one. You would have to get rid of that particle first before the other stuff seems slightly important. Or achievable.
Forget rule two, that is not necessary, anymore, at least the last 100 years.
Forget rule three you will be laughed out of big money physics.
Forget rule four, that isn't even seen as a real necessity if you have the grant money behind you, and a big name institution.
Forget rule five, because it will just persist, and suddenly become a real particle. Despite all of the above.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
_________________
Warning: Any information contained in this post could be part of a conspiracy to make you stupid. So only use it if you understand it. Use at your own risk.
http://www.Rockwelder.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SuperNatendo |
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 518
Location: Nashville, TN USA
|
William, If science has really been that bad the last 100 years, how do you explain all of the technological advances and discoveries we have undergone since then? dumb luck?
_________________
“It’s no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.” - Mark Twain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 3:54 pm Post subject: Re: What must a scientific theory achieve? |
|
|
Forum Isotope
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2584
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
| William McCormick wrote: |
Unless you are going to go back to the neutron particle, forget rule one.
Forget rule two, ...
Forget rule three ...
Forget rule four, ...
Forget rule five, ...
|
so what exactly do you want to replace the forget-me's with ?
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dishmaster |
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 313
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
|
| marnixR wrote: |
any genuine, good, objective piece of science usually exhibits the following values :
1. it is internally coherent : there are no contradictions amongst its premises
2. it is externally consistent : it fits in with other bits of science that are known to be correct
3. it has unificatory power or consilience : it has explanatory power over a wide range of phenomena
4. it has predictive ability : necessary in order to be testable
5. it has predictive fertility : many rather than just a few predictions
6. it has simplicity : explains a lot using a small number of assumptions
Karl Popper's falsifiability usually is expressed in terms of items 1, 2 and 4 |
I agree with you. I'm just not that eloquent.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| William McCormick |
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 1301
|
| SuperNatendo wrote: |
| William, If science has really been that bad the last 100 years, how do you explain all of the technological advances and discoveries we have undergone since then? dumb luck? |
There has not been a single new scientific discovery. And most of the technology that has gone ahead is so flawed. That we see professionals reverting back to older forms of manufacturing.
Look we use China now, rather then to support our own slow, underpriced high tech American shops.
All that tech costs more, and does only a little more for you, with all its flaws and complexity and extra office, clerical, and tech support.
And we only have all this high tech, on the backs of the Chinese working for five dollars a month in China.
Or underpaid Americans in sweat shops.
You are trying to hide the end of America as we know it.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
_________________
Warning: Any information contained in this post could be part of a conspiracy to make you stupid. So only use it if you understand it. Use at your own risk.
http://www.Rockwelder.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| William McCormick |
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: Re: What must a scientific theory achieve? |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 1301
|
| marnixR wrote: |
| William McCormick wrote: |
Unless you are going to go back to the neutron particle, forget rule one.
Forget rule two, ...
Forget rule three ...
Forget rule four, ...
Forget rule five, ...
|
so what exactly do you want to replace the forget-me's with ? |
1. Face law makers down.
2. List atrocities of law makers, to start repairs of.
3. Find individuals that are not afraid to live or die.
4. Train those individuals in leadership.
5. Explain to the world making your own things is the reward of life.
6. Simplify science, only demonstrative science allowed. That is how the elements were isolated.
7. Fix English language.
8. Fix Math.
9.Then repeat steps one through seven
Sincerely,
William McCormick
_________________
Warning: Any information contained in this post could be part of a conspiracy to make you stupid. So only use it if you understand it. Use at your own risk.
http://www.Rockwelder.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marnixR |
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Isotope
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2584
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
and how exactly do these proposals relate to the topic of this thread (which, as a reminder, is "What must a scientific theory achieve?")
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| William McCormick |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 1301
|
| marnixR wrote: |
| and how exactly do these proposals relate to the topic of this thread (which, as a reminder, is "What must a scientific theory achieve?") |
I am very comfortable with science. It is just that by scientific method, I have determined that non-scientists form very strong groups and act like scientists. Bolstering one another. Rather unlike real scientists that tear each other down before breakfast. For the slightest bit of non-scientific information, being introduced.
We have to get to point one, before we can move off to point two. Witch doctors are the epitome of using step 40 without knowing what step one is. Often step 40 is great. Often step 40 kills.
Today some of the weird things they have worked on in science, for an entire lifetime are amazing. Unfortunately if there was a real court. That examined their actual workings. They would be deemed, upon the explanation of their working, useless. Even if they work.
It would be like if you created fire. And said it is the power of chilli peppers.
You might not see anything wrong in that if you believe in neutrons. However, if you do not believe in neutrons, then you would be looking for the real cause of fire. And assume the guy that found the fire, just found it, and cannot understand, explain it, or handle it with responsibility.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
_________________
Warning: Any information contained in this post could be part of a conspiracy to make you stupid. So only use it if you understand it. Use at your own risk.
http://www.Rockwelder.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| William McCormick |
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 1301
|
| marnixR wrote: |
in other words, a scientific theory must in principle be capable of being proven wrong, i.e. there must be a way that you can TRY to prove it wrong
a theory that is always true is by definition not scientific : in essence the theory that explains everything actually explains nothing |
If you are tying to prove the theory wrong. Then you are not proving it wrong.
If you can prove it wrong, either your theory is wrong, or your new theory is wrong. Or you believe in neutrons, and science is the other guys problem.
God, is a rather exacting thing. In that God is all things. Because no one individual can even come close to explaining or taking credit for God.
This is scientific proof that God does exist. We may never see God or an electron. However 99.99 percent of God and electrons are demonstrable.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
_________________
Warning: Any information contained in this post could be part of a conspiracy to make you stupid. So only use it if you understand it. Use at your own risk.
http://www.Rockwelder.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
