On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz <spam@spam.mitre.org> wrote:> >Jerry Avins wrote: >> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote: >> >>> Jerry Avins wrote: >> >> >> ... >> >>>> Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly >>>> subjects of science. >>> >>> >>> How about string theory? >> >> >> String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are >> exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a >> testable prediction, it will fade away. >> >> Jerry > >So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class, >because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the >establishment of a pasta deity. >String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it is, in principle, falsifiable.
Re: OT: Evidence
Started by ●December 21, 2005
Reply by ●December 21, 20052005-12-21
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz <spam@spam.mitre.org> wrote:> >Jerry Avins wrote: >> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote: >> >>> Jerry Avins wrote: >> >> >> ... >> >>>> Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly >>>> subjects of science. >>> >>> >>> How about string theory? >> >> >> String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are >> exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a >> testable prediction, it will fade away. >> >> Jerry > >So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class, >because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the >establishment of a pasta deity. >String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it is, in principle, falsifiable.
Reply by ●December 21, 20052005-12-21
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz <spam@spam.mitre.org> wrote:> >Jerry Avins wrote: >> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote: >> >>> Jerry Avins wrote: >> >> >> ... >> >>>> Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly >>>> subjects of science. >>> >>> >>> How about string theory? >> >> >> String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are >> exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a >> testable prediction, it will fade away. >> >> Jerry > >So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class, >because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the >establishment of a pasta deity. >String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it is, in principle, falsifiable.
Reply by ●December 21, 20052005-12-21
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz <spam@spam.mitre.org> wrote:> >Jerry Avins wrote: >> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote: >> >>> Jerry Avins wrote: >> >> >> ... >> >>>> Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly >>>> subjects of science. >>> >>> >>> How about string theory? >> >> >> String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are >> exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a >> testable prediction, it will fade away. >> >> Jerry > >So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class, >because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the >establishment of a pasta deity. >String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it is, in principle, falsifiable.
Reply by ●December 21, 20052005-12-21
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz <spam@spam.mitre.org> wrote:> >Jerry Avins wrote: >> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote: >> >>> Jerry Avins wrote: >> >> >> ... >> >>>> Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly >>>> subjects of science. >>> >>> >>> How about string theory? >> >> >> String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are >> exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a >> testable prediction, it will fade away. >> >> Jerry > >So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class, >because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the >establishment of a pasta deity. >String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it is, in principle, falsifiable.
Reply by ●December 21, 20052005-12-21
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz <spam@spam.mitre.org> wrote:> >Jerry Avins wrote: >> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote: >> >>> Jerry Avins wrote: >> >> >> ... >> >>>> Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly >>>> subjects of science. >>> >>> >>> How about string theory? >> >> >> String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are >> exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a >> testable prediction, it will fade away. >> >> Jerry > >So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class, >because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the >establishment of a pasta deity. >String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it is, in principle, falsifiable.
Reply by ●December 21, 20052005-12-21
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz <spam@spam.mitre.org> wrote:> >Jerry Avins wrote: >> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote: >> >>> Jerry Avins wrote: >> >> >> ... >> >>>> Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly >>>> subjects of science. >>> >>> >>> How about string theory? >> >> >> String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are >> exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a >> testable prediction, it will fade away. >> >> Jerry > >So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class, >because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the >establishment of a pasta deity. >String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it is, in principle, falsifiable.
Reply by ●December 21, 20052005-12-21
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz <spam@spam.mitre.org> wrote:> >Jerry Avins wrote: >> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote: >> >>> Jerry Avins wrote: >> >> >> ... >> >>>> Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly >>>> subjects of science. >>> >>> >>> How about string theory? >> >> >> String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are >> exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a >> testable prediction, it will fade away. >> >> Jerry > >So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class, >because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the >establishment of a pasta deity. >String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it is, in principle, falsifiable.
Reply by ●December 21, 20052005-12-21
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz <spam@spam.mitre.org> wrote:> >Jerry Avins wrote: >> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote: >> >>> Jerry Avins wrote: >> >> >> ... >> >>>> Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly >>>> subjects of science. >>> >>> >>> How about string theory? >> >> >> String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are >> exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a >> testable prediction, it will fade away. >> >> Jerry > >So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class, >because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the >establishment of a pasta deity. >String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it is, in principle, falsifiable.
Reply by ●December 21, 20052005-12-21
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz <spam@spam.mitre.org> wrote:> >Jerry Avins wrote: >> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote: >> >>> Jerry Avins wrote: >> >> >> ... >> >>>> Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly >>>> subjects of science. >>> >>> >>> How about string theory? >> >> >> String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are >> exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a >> testable prediction, it will fade away. >> >> Jerry > >So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class, >because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the >establishment of a pasta deity. >String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it is, in principle, falsifiable.
