So I Wrote A Book On The Scientific Method

How did Big Bang theory overcome steady state theory in your opinion? Why was the discovery of anti-matter considered the making of Dirac as a theorist in your opinion? Why was the discovery of the Higgs Boson considered important for the validity of the standard model? Why does the discovery of Tiktaalik confirm both evolutionary theory and the geological models that underpin evolutionary theory?Modern science is built in verification of predictions. Whatever Popper does or does not say about that...

The name sounds cooler and it elicits better imagery.

Bzzzzt!!Try again!! :tonguebackatya:

Of course verification is important. Reliance on a single person as 'The' authoritative source is silly anyway. Can you imagine using a debate strategy that begins and ends with "Popper says?"In addition though, I see that I misspoke. No verification means no theory at all because, as most of us agree, simply describing what we see is not the scientific method. No scientist would accept anything without verification. I was instead referring to the effect of spectacular kinds of verification on the acceptance of a theory.Sorry about the confusion; entirely my fault.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

and now imagine debating Popper

I do not expect Popper would employ the tactic of quoting himself and leaving things at that.

I'm puzzled by this notion of a formal, authoritative definition of scientific theory. The only point to defining "theory" is to describe the practice of actual scientists; any brief definition is almost certain to be lacking in some respect. And while there are authorities on scientific practice -- those who study how science is done -- there are no authoritative definitions of "theory", since such definitions have no authority over the scientists doing the work.

Straggler writes: This is a false choice. There are so many untold multitude of theories that will trounce both of these very uniformed views.You are sort of asking why a combustion engine powered car would beat out a rickshaw. Kramer, notwithstanding.

What theories may or may not be forthcoming in the future has little bearing on how we compare competing theories in the present.If you want to know which of two un-falsified scientific theories (e.g. Big Bang and Steady State theories circa 1960) is superior then the answer is the one that accurately and correctly predicts new observable phenomena. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Argument from authority is bad... m'kay?

Only if you're a pedant. Not everyone's opinion is equal; there's nothing wrong in quoting from those who have a proven reputation in the field.

There's nothing wrong with it but it doesn't mean anything either. If a practicing scientist said that a theory doesn't have to be predictive, that would mean something. If he doesn't mention that it does, that's no more significant than if he doesn't mention alligators.

But if he's writing a whole chapter on the what a theory is and doesn't mention prediction?

Not using the word "prediction" is not necessarily the same as not mentioning predictive ability. As others have pointed out, the predictive ability of a theory has mostly to do with whether or not new pieces will fit into the puzzle.

I contend that this is a misleading summary of what Popper actually says on page 9 and 10. He does indeed list empirical testing as one of four lines of inquiry. But he does not go so far as to say that any of the lines of inquiry are sufficient when used alone. At least not on page 10.But more importantly, all three, er... four of the lines of inquiry start with predictions, where predictions are the consequences of the hypotheses.From Potter's book:

quote:

---

According to the view that will be put forward here, the method of critically testing theories, and selecting them according to the results of tests, always proceeds on the following lines. From a new idea, put up tentatively, and not yet justified in any wayan anticipation, a hypothesis, a theoretical system, or what you willconclusions are drawn by means of logical deduction.

---

That's right. Potter says that when critically testing theories, it is "always" required to draw conclusions from the "anticipation, hypothesis, or theoretical system" by means of logical deduction. As has been mentioned several times, these conclusions are what we mean by the term "predictions".As ringo pointed out, mere word searching for "prediction" is not enough. As Dr. Adequate among others also pointed out, "prediction" is not the best word to use because it implies that the conclusions have to be about future states, and that implication is wrong. The conclusions can be about past states.Isn't it great to know that Popper is not the buffoon in this story?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.