🚀 go-pugleaf

Marc A. Belanger <3914MABE@vm1.ulaval.ca> says:
> Frank Peters <fwp@CC.MsState.Edu> wrote:
>[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.

No.  Does he suggest any replacement for falsifiability?  Or does he
recommend that we just accept any theory that sounds reasonable without
testing?

I never claimed that falsifiability was perfect.  For one thing, it
(obviously) can't prove a theory to be true.  But it is the best method
for testing theories available (at least, the best method I know of).

>As someone pointed out, what predictions can (non-experimental) biology
>can make? 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "non-experimental".

>          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?

I'm not a mathematician so I can't answer this one.  But in general
I believe that the most common method of proof in mathematics is to
assume a given theory is false and then detect an inconsistency.  This
is certainly unusual, but then math deals with non-physical entities
for the most part and so is an unusual field.  I'd have to think about
whether I would call it a science.

>In linguistics, I think that some predictions can be made. 

Fine.  I never claimed that linguistics is unscientific (that was Mark
Israel I think).  I just gave the most accepted (I believe) definition
of what "scientific" is.
-- 
Frank Peters  -  UNIX Systems Group Leader  -  Mississippi State University
Internet: fwp@CC.MsState.Edu  -  Phone: 601-325-7030  -  FAX: 601-325-8921
             WWW Home Page:  http://www.msstate.edu/~fwp