Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Let's get \"Serious\"
Message-ID: <3566@alice.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 13-Apr-85 11:20:52 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.3566
Posted: Sat Apr 13 11:20:52 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Apr-85 06:49:58 EST
References: <1628@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 24

Ken Arndt says:

> And now the capstone!!!  Carnell (my hero!) says; "All hypotheses are but
> patterns of meaning which are thought out by the mind of the investigator
> to explain the configuration of data which it faces.  The hypotheses that
> work well are called 'theories',and theories that stick are called 'laws'.
> But let us not forget that these laws are but good hypotheses."

> Is this not what science, and ALL thought is about.  Ergo, what IS the
> difference between a scientific and a 'religious' theory???  To put my
> old question again.

One difference between a scientific and a religious theory
is that a scientific theory must be capable, at least in
principle, of being falsified.

Thus, if I attempt to explain everything in the universe by
saying "The universe is totally erratic, so there is no
such thing as physical law," what I have said cannot qualify
as a scientific theory, because there is no conceivable observation
that could ever falsify it.

On the other hand, it's trivial to imagine an experiment that,
if "successful," would falsify F=MA.