Jim Higgins wrote:
Cecil seems to be annoyed by the Scientific Method because at some
point there are competing theories and all can't be correct. Of
course! That's how science works!

Jim, I'm annoyed at people who assert that scientific
theories are never wrong and are simply a subset of
something that is more correct.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Higgins wrote:
Cecil seems to be annoyed by the Scientific Method because at some
point there are competing theories and all can't be correct. Of
course! That's how science works!

Jim, I'm annoyed at people who assert that scientific
theories are never wrong and are simply a subset of
something that is more correct.

I'm sure those straw men of yours are shaking in their boots.


--

73 from Ian GM3SEK

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
I'm sure those straw men of yours are shaking in their boots.

I think if you will check the history of this thread,
someone asserted that scientific theories are very
rarely ever wrong but sometimes have to be boundary
condition limited to become subsets of more accurate
theories.

So I am never wrong - I am just in the process of
defining the boundary conditions for my scientific
theories. :-)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

I'm sure those straw men of yours are shaking in their boots.


I think if you will check the history of this thread,
someone asserted that scientific theories are very
rarely ever wrong but sometimes have to be boundary
condition limited to become subsets of more accurate
theories.

Sounds like someone might have been talking about the theories
ordinarily referred to as Newtonian Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Sounds like someone might have been talking about the theories
ordinarily referred to as Newtonian Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics.

No, he appeared to be referring to all theories:

"Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Sounds like someone might have been talking about the theories
ordinarily referred to as Newtonian Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics.

No, he appeared to be referring to all theories:

"Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't."

If you think that is incorrect, it should be easy for you to name
a theory that was validated by multiple, indendent, reproducible,
experiments and later discarded.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Cecil Moore wrote:

Sounds like someone might have been talking about the theories
ordinarily referred to as Newtonian Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics.

No, he appeared to be referring to all theories:

"Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't."

And, I'd say that his statement is true, almost by definition.

Why? Well, it's because scientists don't upgrade a proposal from
something generally called a "hypothesis", to something called a
"theory", until it has survived quite a lot of technical challenges
and numerous attempts to find experimental evidence which disproves it.

In other words, if it were easy (and quick) to disprove it, or if it
didn't have substantial predictive power and verifiability, it never
would have been called a "theory".

Hypotheses are born in large numbers... and are often easily slain
while they're still at the "hypothesis" stage. "Theories" are the
ones which are still marching along, churning out useful predictions,
after many assaults.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

wrote:

...
If you think that is incorrect, it should be easy for you to name
a theory that was validated by multiple, indendent, reproducible,
experiments and later discarded.



Just to get you started, mind you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolet...tific_theories

JS

wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
"Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't."

If you think that is incorrect, it should be easy for you to name
a theory that was validated by multiple, indendent, reproducible,
experiments and later discarded.

The theory that independent organisms smaller than 1 um
are impossible has recently been discarded. Up until they
identified a 10 nm independent organism, that theory was
validated multiple times.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote in news:luwci.4098$bP5.4094
@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net:

Jim Higgins wrote:
Cecil seems to be annoyed by the Scientific Method because at some
point there are competing theories and all can't be correct. Of
course! That's how science works!

Jim, I'm annoyed at people who assert that scientific
theories are never wrong and are simply a subset of
something that is more correct.

Those who do are definitely not using the scientific method, are
they?

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -