X-Message-Number: 8225
Subject: Testable hypothesis (response to Cryonet #8221)
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 10:40:30 -0500
From: Will Dye <>

I'd intended to not participate in the simulation debate, but now 
I'll break down and add a small point of my own.  Mr. Metzger writes:

> Science depends on constructing TESTABLE hypotheses, you see. If you
> can't test it, its religion, not science. I can hypothesize that there
> is an invisible undetectable six foot tall bunny following Robert
> Ettinger at all times, and no one could prove me wrong -- but since no
> one can conduct a test of any sort to prove me wrong, we can ignore
> the question as religious, not scientific.

To my reading, these statements imply that science consists only of 
statements that are falsifiable at the time they are made, and that 
any other statements are by definition religious questions.  I just 
want to state that I don't agree with this classification system.  
I'm not against the idea that science needs a falsifiable question.  
Popper came up with a great heuristic, which, like Occam's Razor, 
helps us quickly identify the paths which will more quickly lead to 
satisfying results.  But I argue that it's only a heuristic, not a 
reliable definition that draws a clear line between "science" and 
"religion".  I do not believe that such a definition exists.  

--Will

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8225