On Monday, June 10, 2013 03:51:15 PM Joshua Marsh wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Charles Curley < > > charlescur...@charlescurley.com> wrote: > > * Use the hypothesis to make some predictions which can be falsified. > > > > Once you introduce the possibility of falsification, you have a > > theory. > > > > * Do the experiments and see if any of them falsify the theory. > > You have crafted these two points very carefully to suit your position. :) >
Interesting. I agree with what Charles said, my only concern is the scientist who crafts the experiment to prove his hypothesis in a particular situation. Example: I believe that if I close my eyes and I cannot see something, then it doesn't exist. I can see and hear my children playing in the background. When I close my eyes I cannot see them, but I can still hear them, so they exist still in theory. But if I go to a quite dark room where I can no longer hear my children, when I shut my eyes, do they still exist? Obviously, this is a stupid example, but the point is I can craft an experiment to prove my children do not exist. As a software developer I create hypothesis all day long, then write tests to prove it works or it doesn't. Many times, I write tests to validate code in a particular use case, and I say Hoorah, this code works flawlessly. Does it in fact work flawlessly? Or only in that particular case? Hopefully you see my point. When a scientist has a bias he can prove anything he wants to. Nathan /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
