Fwd: Big Bang?

[David Casseres]

Dude, you just said, "I have reservations about the notion of a
'falsifiable hypothesis'," and then went on to demonstrate that you
don't understand the words "falsifiable" or "hypothesis" as used in
science.  You are at a serious disadvantage here because you haven't
read the assignment, or done the homework.  Yet that doesn't stop
you...


On 10/9/05, jbor at bigpond.com <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?
>
> I don't have a problem with the concept of falsifiability at all. Why
> invent another straw man? It's the semantic category of "falsifiable
> hypothesis" I questioned.
>
> Does "Science", or your version of it, acknowledge that there is a
> qualitative difference between, e.g., the "Big Bang" theory, and, e.g.,
> the theory of gravitational attraction? My observation is that there is
> a big difference, but I don't see that the rhetorical construct
> "falsifiable hypothesis" delineates or caters for that difference in
> any way.
>
> best
>
>