🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <16FFBA1F7.3914MABE@vm1.ulaval.ca>,
Marc A. Belanger <3914MABE@vm1.ulaval.ca> wrote:
> In article <30jqdl$fl@Jester.CC.MsState.Edu>,
> Frank Peters <fwp@CC.MsState.Edu> wrote:
> >Marc A. Belanger <3914MABE@vm1.ulaval.ca> says:
> >>I stand corrected. But would you still say that a science has to make
> >>predictions in order to be considered scientific?
> >
> >Pretty much.
>>>
>[after which follows a discussion on falsifiability and :
> >The only way that I can think of to do this is to make predictions of
> >the nature of unobserved phenomena based upon the theory. USW]
> 
>Have you read Kuhn? In his famous book he agrues that falsifiability
>does not work as much as we think it does. (I must however say that I
>cannot profess to be an expert on his views)
> 
>As someone pointed out, what predictions can (non-experimental) biology
>can make? Moreover, can anyone tell me of any prediction made by maths

Assuming you mean paleontology, one might well have predicted that if you
look in the right place, you might find transitional forms between
ungulates and whales.  Until recently, the absence of such forms
was a source of amusement for troglodytes.  Unfortunately for them,
such transitional forms were recently found.  Predictions about the
past are only impossible if one assumes all information about the past
is already known and not subject to reinterpretation using new analytic
methods.

>(or math) or by sciences having to cope with complex systems or non-

The latter can make statistical predictions, or model chaotic processes,
that is, show that apparently chaotic behavior can result from simple
mechanisms.