Re: [Phys-l] DATA, FACTS, LAWS, THEORIES

[ludwik kowalski <kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu>]

On Oct 18, 2009, at 6:22 PM, Hugh Haskell wrote:

> At 15:10 -0700 10/18/2009, John Mallinckrodt wrote:
> > Not to take away from Hugh's point, which I agree with, but I wince a
> > little bit whenever I hear appeals to the amount of "supporting
> > evidence" for a theory without an accompanying assessment of the
> > degree to which the theory may be *vulnerable* to evidence.  After
> > all, proponents of intelligent design can also point to overwhelming
> > supporting evidence.  The difference is that it is entirely
> > inconceivable that any evidence could ever be found that is
> > inconsistent with ID.
> Valid point. I was thinking about the possibility of evidence against
> evolution that could be conclusive (e.g., finding fossils from widely
> different time periods co-located in the same rock layer), but
> decided to leave it out to keep my response short. It is certainly
> true that, even as a "fact" evolution is still subject to refutation
> by evidence, although, so far, all the evidence found supports the
> evolutionary model we presently have constructed. ID, on the other
> hand, as John points out, is not susceptible to refutation and
> therefore cannot be considered a scientific theory in any sense. And
> furthermore, not only can it not be refuted in principle, it can also
> make no useful predictions about what we

According to point (f) in:

 http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/382terms.html

“Scientific theories are validated not only on the basis of their  
logical (mathematical) correctness but also on the basis of their  
ability to guide to discoveries of unknown facts. Scientific theories  
evolve; some theories are more powerful, more general, more useful and  
more elegant, than others.”

I will add another sentence “A theory is not acceptable to scientists  
unless it is susceptible to refutation. In other words, a scientific  
theory must be falsifiable. "

The attribute of usefulness was suggested by someone who is not on our  
list. I am open to other constructive suggestions.

Ludwik Kowalski, a retired physics teacher
5 Horizon Road, Apt. 2702, Fort Lee, NJ, 07024, USA
Also an amateur journalist.

                                            Food for thought:  
"Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

Updated links  to his selected publications are at:
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/  ,   http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/my_opeds.html 
  and  http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/revcom.html