Sorry, Stagamancer and Subbie, but I have trouble with this.
But again, saying any contradictory evidence means the theory is falsified is not true.
To me this says the theory is damaged goods.
Both Quantum Theory and the Theory of Relativity are incomplete, but that doesn't mean that are false.
Forgive me, but this just seems like semantic quibbling. Incomplete means that it is not a complete theory (because it does not explain contrary evidence so we know it is
wrong in some way).
When scientists started looking at the quantum level, they found phenomena that contradicted the Theory of Relativity. Plenty of solid evidence has been collected, and we know that Relativity does not completely explain the physical properties of everything we can observe, but it still has its own positive evidence, and it is still a useful theory.
Curiously, many people here will not be surprised that I consider the Theory of Relativity to be damaged goods, but that is a topic for another thread.
What you are really saying is that you
know the theory is not true in some areas, but you use it anyway because it can make some useful predictions in other areas (you just need to stay away from areas where it doesn't work). What you have done is adjust the theory to restrict it to the area/s where there are no known contradictions.
This is like using Newton's gravity theory to launch probes to Mars and the other planets - it can make useful predictions within a subset of reality, in a restricted area of application.
So one of the requirements of a useful scientific theory is that it provide predictive power in specified areas, and that
within that specified area there are no anomalous or contradictions ... or that the anomalies are known and empirical adjustments are factored in to the predictions.
Certainly I hope you are not claiming that these incomplete theories can make useful predictions in areas where we know they break down.
Enjoy.
™ Version 4.2
