0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote:If it unambiguously predicts an observable event, then the success or failure in observing the predicted event will constitute provability (hence meeting your third criteria).
quote:Originally posted by DoctorBeaveranother_someone - very eloquently stated.However... quote:If it unambiguously predicts an observable event, then the success or failure in observing the predicted event will constitute provability (hence meeting your third criteria).I think that's a bit narrow. Certain theories predict events or conditions that we currently do not have the technology to prove. Just because the predicted event is presently unobservable, doesn't mean the theory is not good.Plus, one has to consider that it's easier to prove something isn't rather than that it is. A theory can be tested in a thousand different ways and seem to hold true. But who is to say that the 1001st test won't disprove it? One can never test for all eventualities, so for any theory there is always the possibility of failure. However, once a theory has failed, there is no way back. Or, at least, no way back without modification.
quote:If all of the predictions the theory are unobservable in the current time, then the theory has no contemporary utility. If all of the predictions that are currently observable are only those that may be predicted with current alternative theory, and it predicts with equal accuracy all of those events that existing theory would predict, then the utility of the new theory exists purely in whether the new theory is easier to use than its preceding theory.
quote:Originally posted by DoctorBeaverAgain, I find myself disgreeing. Take the example of general relitivity. When Einstein 1st published it, many of its predictions were unobservable (e.g. time dilation) & it was certainly no easier to use than Newtonian mechanics.
quote:Originally posted by malformIt probably should have been titled:"What makes a theory less flamable on the internet"