🚀 go-pugleaf

 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
(or math) or by sciences having to cope with complex systems or non-
linear equations?
 
In linguistics, I think that some predictions can be made. I could (this
is just a shot in the dark) predict that IE languages which develop an
article will start by the definite one (which will be derived, probably
from a demonstrative) and will also develop, at a similar time (maybe
some decades before or after) an auxiliary system (other than the peri-
phrastic passive). Other such prediction could be made.
 
                                    - Marc.
______________________________________________________________________
 
   "Don't blame me for the fate that falls, I did not choose it"
______________________________________________________________________