Fwd: Big Bang?

[John Doe]

The answer to your question is simple: a hypothesis is
falsifiable or not, based on EXPERIMENT. You postualte
a possible "answer" to a "problem" in science, then
you must design or discover an experiment to test that
hypothesis...experimentation is a key feature of
science....many people seem to forget this feature all
the time...esp. Derrida..; }
Incidentally, this kind of process is a sort of
built-in Humbling Mechanism; in ART, and other areas
of endeavor, one's ego can go full crank and
"determine" the meanings of things...but in science,
no matter how big you ego is, no matter how
charismatic your personality, no matter how good
looking or well-connected you are, if the numbers
don't match in the end, your hypothesis is wrong -
period. Good scientists understand this ; scientific
egos compete, want fame and glory, etc. but in the
end, if your "view" doesn't exhibit itself via
experiment you have to say " I was
wrong"...politicians and poets are not held to this
level of responsibility and and self-abnegation...and
even if you DON'T admit you are wrong, the scientific
evidence will show that you are...so the individual
ego must subjugate itself to the larger
"system"....art doesn't work that way...and neither do
lit-crit "theories" of language...

--- Cyrus <ioannissevastianos at yahoo.gr> wrote:

> jbor at bigpond.com wrote:
> 
> > I have reservations about the notion of a
> "falsifiable hypothesis", 
> > which seems to me like rhetorical sleight of hand.
> (What is the 
> > "truth" or "fact" status or quotient of an
> "hypothesis"? Are there 
> > degrees? Probability coeefficients? Is an
> "hypothesis" ever actually 
> > falsifiable? -- mostly it seems it's succeeded by
> a similarly 
> > well-funded "scientific" derivation. Are there
> precedent unresolved 
> > and constant variables (or slothrops even) which
> logically prevent the 
> > hypothesis from ever being disproven?-- if so, it
> isn't, 
> > technically-speaking, "falsifiable". Is it, in
> linguistic terms also, 
> > a closed system which defines and perpetuates
> itself?)
> 
> 
> I don't see why you have a problem with the concept
> of falsifiablity. 
> 'Is an "hypothesis" ever actually falsifiable?' Of
> course it is. A 
> scientific hypothesis is not just an abstract
> sentence, which you can 
> defend at all times and costs through rhetoric and
> whatnots. It is based 
> on data and observations. If the data prove false,
> the hypothesis falls 
> apart. If new data come along, refuting the
> hypothesis and making its 
> predictions null, the hypothesis is discarded. Why
> are you taking 
> something as straightforward as this and trying to
> make it look obscure 
> and convoluted?
> 
> Cyrus
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Music Unlimited 
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/