Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2075 sci.philosophy.tech:710
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!well!sierch
From: sierch@well.UUCP (Michael Sierchio)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: How to dispose of naive science types (short)
Keywords: unproveable theories
Message-ID: <6657@well.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jul 88 18:18:48 GMT
References: <483@cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk> <794@l.cc.purdue.edu> <488@aiva.ed.ac.uk> <1496@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <531@ns.UUCP> <632@novavax.UUCP>
Reply-To: sierch@well.UUCP (Michael Sierchio)
Organization: Small Systems Solutions
Lines: 21


Theories are not for proving!

A theory is a model, a description, an attempt to preserve and describe
phenomena -- science is not concerned with "proving" or "disproving"
theories. Proof may have a slightly different meaning for attorneys than
for mathematicians, but scientists are closer to the mathematician's
definition -- when they use the word at all.

A theory may or may not adequately describe the phenomena in question, in
which case it is a "good" or "bad" theory -- of two "good" theories, the
theory that is "more elegant" or "simpler" may be preferred -- but this
is an aesthetic or performance judgement, and again has nothing to do with
proof.

Demonstration and experimentation show (to one degree or another) the value
of a particular theory in a particular domain -- but PROOF? bah!
-- 
	Michael Sierchio @ Small Systems Solutions

	sierch@well.UUCP
	{pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax,hoptoad}!well!sierch