Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one
From: Ken Seto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 10/11/04
- Next message: Ken Seto: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Previous message: Ken Seto: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 11 Oct 2004 10:37:42 -0700
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<2so5v7F1mtvk9U1@uni-berlin.de>...
> Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>
> > E.g. neutrinos were epicycles for beta decay. Except that momentum and
> > energy actually were conserved, and neutrinos are now routinely detected.
>
> Then they are not epicycles any more. First the were -hypothesized-,
> then they were -found-. Science advances on hypotheses. Atoms were
> hypotheitical before there was enough evidence to indicate that they are
> real.
Neutrinos were predicted by the theory before their discovery. Dark
energy and dark matters are different. They were added to correct the
erroneous prediction of GR. Therefore they are the true epicycles.
Ken Seto
>
> Ad-hocs become problematical when the hypothesis (which are a kind of
> promissary note to get real evidence) can not be validate independently
> of the effect for which they were formulated and that ad-hocs have to be
> added again and again. Whan a tire becomes more patch than tire it is
> time to replace it.
>
>
> Bob Kolker
- Next message: Ken Seto: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Previous message: Ken Seto: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
