Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one
From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.net)
Date: 10/08/04
- Next message: Rob Woodside: "Re: Disposing of nuclear waste."
- Previous message: Morituri-Max: "Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law???"
- In reply to: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Next in thread: Ken Seto: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Reply: Ken Seto: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:52:22 -0400
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.
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: Rob Woodside: "Re: Disposing of nuclear waste."
- Previous message: Morituri-Max: "Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law???"
- In reply to: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Next in thread: Ken Seto: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Reply: Ken Seto: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
