From owner-biophysics@net.bio.net Sun Nov 22 22:00:00 1998 Path: biosci!news.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.indiana.edu!not-for-mail From: Shaft Newsgroups: bionet.biophysics,bionet.microbiology,bionet.neuroscience Subject: Testability and Hypotheses, Dane et al Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:31:29 -0500 Organization: Indiana University Lines: 44 Message-ID: <3659B800.AD2F4594@indiana.edu> References: <721spg$cr7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36449D67.378533CC@pop3.concentric.net> <36449FE2.313F8F3@pop3.concentric.net> <36477CA4.D2FED10@pop3.concentric.net> <3647B373.953F0A70@pop3.concentric.net> <3649B0AF.E720E242@psci.net> <364AAB63.C5056FB9@pop3.concentric.net> <364B5C6D.75E14B08@indiana.edu> <72s7c5$1mt@apple.telalink.net> <36532160.4995D522@indiana.edu> <73b09n$9r8$1@usc.edu> Reply-To: qmorrisREMOVE@indiana.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: jh224-776710-11.ucs.indiana.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Xref: biosci bionet.biophysics:4564 bionet.microbiology:15116 bionet.neuroscience:25921 Idiotic. I'm sure you would say that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was also untestable. In a very narrow way of thinking, you are correct. If you define "testable" to mean "testable today and only today", your argument may hold up. But of course it is unreasonable to define "testable" as anything but "testable, today and in the future". Let me point out the flaw in your reasoning. Darwin's original hypothesis was untestable in his time, but it is certainly testable (and has been tested) today. The difference between his hypothesis and the hypothesis of Creation of God's existence is that the latter CANNOT be tested for verification/ falsification. You are correct when you point out that there are some hypotheses that cannot adequately be tested at present. But the hypotheses are desgined to be testable, despite our contemporaneous inability to test such hypotheses. E = mc^2 is, of course, a hypothesis, a theory by some peoples' accounts, even. But it IS being tested, and has been tested since Michaelson. I think your argument (quoted below) is terribly weak. A cogent argument can be madeheological hypotheses were never meant to be tested scientifically. But you can make up your own mind on that. shaft Dane Myers wrote: > Fully one third of the current hypothesis in high energy physics are > untestable; the Standard Model fits current empirical theory fairly well, > and you'd be run out the back door permanently were you to accuse the big > boys at CERN or SLAC of running on faith. But E still equals mc^2, Higgs > bosons still decay to leptons, and although not very pretty, the Standard > Model is still empirically pleasing. Now tell me again why testability must > predicate science? > > Shaft wrote in message <36532160.4995D522@indiana.edu>... > > > >You can search for middle ground in the fray of the arguments, and > >inhabit with your comfortable beliefs, but one fact remains. The > >numerous hypotheses of creation by the hand of God are > >UNTESTABLE, and therefore UNSCIENTIFIC. .