In general, theories that cannot be tested are worthless. By that I mean
if a theory does not produce a testable quantitative asertion it is
vapor. It has no standing.

Bob Kolker


This is a key point.

I have had to sit at parties, gunned down by ghost believers, god squaders,
everyone with a belief - they all believe scientists are closed minds who
cannot see it. So I say to them "yes you can believe, you can have a theory
but you must produce something predicatable, something everybody can say yes
this theory does indeed reproduce, time and time again, events, results that
were once thought bizarre, but now completely explained". Of course they
never can. 'My brother once saw this', 'my Aunt is convinced', 'my Uncle has
a perpetual motion machine that generates all his energy needs' - but will
never show you this device or reconcile that with his monthly energy
payments!

I say to them, believe in what you want, but if you cannot predict anything
with it, it is worthless. Absolutely worthless. They never can, it is all
one-off anecdotes.

Incidentally, they never explain why ghosts go through walls, but don't fall
through the floor. I guess Ghosts don't feel the gravitational force.

'God moves in mysterious ways'.

In other words, we haven't a bloody clue - but we do have this golden waiver
card (get-out clause), if we can't explain it, we just wheel out this old
tosh.

To re-quote Dr/Prof/Mr/Kolker

if a theory does not produce a testable quantitative asertion it is
vapor. It has no standing.


Richard Miller

robert j. kolker wrote:


RP wrote:


I think not. Theories cannot be proved. They can be tested, but never
proved. You don't actually expect every new theory to be tested
exhaustively by its authors, do you? That's an impossible task. The
onus is necessarily on the opposition to provide an empirical
contradiction to the theory.

I am well aware that proof in the mathematical sense is not possible.
The burden of showing some evidence in favor of a theory lies with the
one proposing it. If the proposer cannot establish the possibility that
his theory might be sound on empirical grounds he is just blowing wind.

So ? Do you mean that seriously and honestly ?
Please tell me what you mean with "sound on empirical grounds" ?
How do you take a theory that meets all observations (up to now),
and additionally lets see known particle numbers ?
I know that physicists are enraged if an engineer dares to propose
such theory (even worse: supply with evidence), but would like to
hear _your_ opinion.

Ulrich
http://home.t-online.de/home/Ulrich.Bruchholz/

"Paul Draper" wrote in message
om...
I'm writing this just to set a line in the sand for both alternate-theory
posters and to those who respond to those posters. All too often,
pyrotechnic rhetoric gets in the way of a very simple evaluation.

1. A good theory has to refer to well-defined terms and concepts. It does
no
good to exploit the softness of common language to fuzz the boundaries of
words. If you say "waves" and you don't mean everything that is included
in
the definition of a wave as physicists define it, then provide a careful
and
complete definition of your own, being sure to explicitly exclude the
conventional connotations that don't apply. It's not necessary to adopt
the
same language and concepts from historically accepted physics terminology.
If it were so, we would have not come to understand "rest mass",
"invariant
interval", "branes", "black holes", or "quarks". But it IS important to
define carefully what you mean.

Sure.


But this isn't enough.

2. A good theory has to be self-consistent. That is, it can't predict
something that is counter to another prediction, or can't predict
something
that is counter to one of its assumptions. It is not necessary that it be
consistent with assumptions and predictions of other theories. If it were
so, we would not have accepted the relativity of simultaneity. But it IS
important to check that the theory is coherent.

Hmmmmm. It is not so simple. For exmaple use of the Dirac delta function
was inconsistent before they developed distribution theory. Like so many
things in science hard and fast rules are difficult to come by. Again
linearised gravity has at least one inconsistency and yet accounts for quite
a few phenomomena.


But this isn't enough. All too often, theorists come up with a model that
is
pleasing to the eye and self-consistent and think that those virtues alone
make it appealing.

3. A good theory has to *qualitatively* account for all existing
observations and experimental results that pertain to its domain. A theory
that is patently inconsistent with a known result MUST be summarily
discarded, no matter how well 1 and 2 are satisfied. It is not necessary
that the underlying explanation agree with pre-existing theoretical
explanations. If it were so, we would would have dismissed special
relativity. But special relativity did not violate any hitherto observed
behavior at low velocity, and there were therefore no good reasons to
dismiss it on those grounds.

I would agree with that.


But this isn't enough. A plausible explanation does not substitute for a
real calculation. And this, unfortunately, is where most of our amateur
theorists with alternate theories come to a grinding halt.

Too true.


4. A good theory has to *quantitatively* account for all existing
observations and experimental results that pertain to its domain. This is
where mathematical underpinnings start to become required. You can't make
a
quantitative calculation of a behavior that can be measured without the
mathematical representation of the theory. It is not important that the
model agree with the form of the equations and formulas of other theories.
If it were so, then the Copernican model of the solar system would not
have
supplanted the earth-centric epicycle model. But if the Copernican model
had
not been able to CALCULATE the position of the planets in the sky as well
as, or better than, the epicycle model, then it would not have mattered
how
well 1 and 2 and 3 were satisfied.

Sure.


But this isn't enough. There may be dozens of completely equivalent models
that adequately describe the same known phenomena, both qualitatively and
quantitatively. If this is all a theory does -- match evenly against an
existing model -- then it is no good. Here again is where many
"alternative
interpretations" fall flat.

5. A good theory has to *quantitatively predict* an observable behavior
that
has not yet been measured, and preferably a behavior that is at odds with
the predicted behavior of other proposed theories. If it fails to predict
anything new, then it must be dismissed as a theory, no matter how well 1,
2, 3, and 4 are satisfied.

If however it is more elegant and appealing then it might be better. Eg SR
and LET make exactly the same predictions in their domain of applicability.
It is not because of 1, 2, 3 or 4 SR is preferred - it is because it is
based on what physicists have discovered is a very important aspect of
nature - symmetry - see Tom Roberts admittedly ancient post
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=38...D%40lucent.com.

If Einstein had written general relativity, but
he had failed to make the verifiable prediction that the apparent location
of a star would shift so many arc-seconds during an eclipse, then it would
have been a worthless theory.

Not necessarily - it would have been more in line with the experimental
evidence of SR eg Newton's theory predicts instantaneous action of gravity
something verboten in SR - GR does not.

In this sense, most of the string models and
spin-network models of the universe are NOT good theories yet, because
they
fail to make a verifiable prediction.

Here is where we get to the rub. If what you say above is true why are they
being pursued and what makes it legitimate science? It has to do with the
attitude of those doing it - they worry about the above. That is the key
thing and what makes it science.

In this sense, even the Standard Model
with the Higgs boson is not a very good theory yet, because one of its
primary verifiable predictions (the Higgs boson) has not been confirmed
yet.

Not quite true - the standard model includes QED which is the most
accurately experimentally verified theory of all time. One must look a the
theory as a whole to form an opinion.


Alternative-theory-proposers: the onus is on you to make sure your model
satisfies ALL FIVE of the above requirements. If it does not, then the
world
has a complete right to summarily dismiss your conjecture.

I do not agree.


Alternative-theory flamers: the onus is on you to point accurately to the
failing of the theory. Inconsistency with existing, verified *theories* is
not a valid critique. For example, it is improper to discount a theory
because it disagrees with Dirac's equation or because it violates a
postulate of GR.

Not quite true - if that posusulate has experimental support then it is
proper to discount it. But point taken - correspondence with experiment is
the criteria and ability of the theory to make predictions.

It IS proper to point to an experimental observation which
an existing theory gets correct and the proposed model does not (steps 3,
4
and 5 above). It is improper to discount a theory because the proposer has
not calculated your favorite observable. It IS proper to point out that
the
proposed theory either doesn't have the mathematical equipment to
calculate
your favorite observable, or that it does but the calculation results in
something contrary to what's actually seen.

Still a very good post.

Thanks
Bill


PD

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:32:44 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:

Religion and politics are based upon absolutes and faith. They will
always fail - bloodily dragging their adherents down with them.
Science adapts and improves. Science and its adherents are smart
enough to learn. That is what humanity is all about.

How convenient.

Nazis were good scientists too. Top of the line!

Tell me, in USA, are Chicanos better scientists or your ilk?
How come they're successfully and firmly moving on to erase
your asses off this planet then.

Your _only_ chance is to respect others. Otherwise you're a
goner no matter how you struggle. Your problem, Al, is that
like your cohort Shockley you've got a few wires missing.
And even a Chicano knows how to take advantage of it.

--

The world has been different ever since Darwin. But
no less exciting.

"Stephen Jay Gould"

"Daniel Weston" wrote in message
...
To Uncle Al: You said that Euclid geometry was shown to be wrong by
Riemann geometry, insofar as defining parallel lines is concerned. But
Euclid's geometry is limited by definition to 2 dimensions. Riemann
geometry addresses an entirely different domain. I would think that the
Euclidean definition of parallel lines still stands and has not been
refuted by Reimann geometry.

Daniel - Euclidian geometry is a special case of Riemanian geometry and
includes cases that do not obey the parallel axiom as well as those that
do - ie Euclid's 5th axiom - see
http://www.matematik.lu.se/matematik...ma/Riemann.pdf.

Bill


How is your experiment coming?

This is something I have been waiting for. Providing the framework for the
scientific theory is as important as is the scientific theory itself.
As the framework is analogous with mathematics, it is something that everyone
should master.
I am grateful to Paul Draper for his clear and comprehensive statement on this
important topic.

"John T Lowry" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Paul Draper" wrote in message
om...
I'm writing this just to set a line in the sand for both
alternate-theory
posters and to those who respond to those posters. All too often,
pyrotechnic rhetoric gets in the way of a very simple evaluation.

1. A good theory has to refer to well-defined terms and concepts. It
does no

How about this

#6. A good theory has to be falsifiable under some set of experimental
facts.

Does it have to consistent? Does it need to agree with experimental
evidence? Do theories that gel with other theories better but are
experimentally the same better? Are heroes that make more falsifiable
predictions better again? Tons of questions remain. The point is no hard
and fast rules exist - we must judge each on a case by case basis.

Thanks
Bill


John Lowry
Flight Physics

Daniel Weston wrote:

To Uncle Al: You said that Euclid geometry was shown to be wrong by
Riemann geometry, insofar as defining parallel lines is concerned. But
Euclid's geometry is limited by definition to 2 dimensions. Riemann
geometry addresses an entirely different domain. I would think that the
Euclidean definition of parallel lines still stands and has not been
refuted by Reimann geometry.

Not true. Euclidean spaces of any finite number of dimensions exist.
Affine n-space with the usual metric is Euclidean. The isometries
(allowing more mirror images or reversal of orientation) is the group
O(n) and the rigid motion group is SO(n)

Bob Kolker

Maleki wrote:

Tell me, in USA, are Chicanos better scientists or your ilk?
How come they're successfully and firmly moving on to erase
your asses off this planet then.

Because our cowardly traitorous politicians are letting it happen in the
name of Democracy and Diversity. If the Smart People of this country do
not take power we are in for a wide world of Pain.

Bob Kolker

Bill Hobba wrote:


Does it have to consistent?

Yes. Ex falsi quodlibet. From an inconsistent set of postulates any well
formed statement can be inferred.

Bob Kolker