Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2060 sci.philosophy.tech:694
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bunny!rjb1
From: rjb1@bunny.UUCP (Richard J. Brandau)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: How to dispose of naive science types (short)
Summary: "Unproveable?"
Keywords: open your eyes next time you leave the lab
Message-ID: <6032@bunny.UUCP>
Date: 23 Jul 88 18:46:25 GMT
References: <483@cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk> <794@l.cc.purdue.edu> <488@aiva.ed.ac.uk> <531@ns.UUCP>
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA
Lines: 26

> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes:
> Please explain to me how an unproveable theory (one that makes no unique
> predictions) can be useful?

Perhaps you mean a NONDISPROVABLE theory.  An "unproveable" theory is
a very special thing, often much harder to find than a "proveable"
theory.  If you can show that a theory is unprovable (in some axiom
set), you've done a good day's science.

No theories make "unique predictions" about the real, (empirical)
world.  Are quarks the ONLY way to explain the proliferation of
subnuclear particles?  Perhaps a god of the cyclotron made them
appear.  The difference between the scientific and religious theories
is that the scientific one can be DISproven: it makes predictions that
can be TESTED.

You may, if you like, apply this distiction to the beliefs that
determine your behavior.  Since you can't disprove the existence of
God, you may choose to chuck out all religion.  Since you CAN think of
ways to disprove f=ma, you may avoid being run over by a bus.

-- Rich Brandau

|  I take no responsiblity for the words or deeds of my employer, and
|  vice versa.  Symbolics is a trademark of Symbolics, Inc.  UNIX is a
|  trademark of AT&T.  Edsel is a trademark of the Ford Motor Company.