Paul Hutchinson wrote:

>>>> So far, yes.
>>>
>>> And not likely to change anytime soon  :)
>> 
>> One sure-tell sign of bad science is a prediction of the future. 
> 
> I could not disagree more strongly. The ability to make dependable
> predictions of future results is an essential part of good science.
> Failure to make testable predictions is a sign of bad science or
> pseudoscience. A hypothesis that makes no predictions is not science and
> frankly, to me it is useless.

I think you might have misunderstood me. I didn't mean predictions within
the realm of science, in the form of "I predict that in experiment A, under
the circumstances B, measured value C relates to measured value D as given
by theory E, within the error margin F". This would be science, according
to the scientific method. 

However, this is not quite "predicting the future" as I (with my, as a
non-native speaker, admittedly limited knowledge of the English language)
understand "the future". "Predicting the outcome of an experiment under
controlled external influences" doesn't quite qualify as "predicting the
future" for me. "The future" includes all possible (foreseeable and
unforeseeable) outside influences, and therefore generally seems not to
lend itself well for the scientific method. While there are a number of
scientific theories about certain aspects of the future (under controlled
conditions), there is none (at least to my knowledge) about "the future"
itself, in all its aspects. Which is exactly why I wrote that an attempt to
predict "the future" (not a tiny, controlled aspect of it) is not science. 

Also, claiming that "this won't change anytime soon" doesn't seem to
qualify for a prediction in the context of the scientific method as stated
above. For one thing, science so far has no commonly accepted theory about
the next new scientific theory or next new technical process with
surprising results that is to expect and when. Therefore, any prediction in
this respect is IMO non-scientific -- at least until there is a commonly
accepted theory for this. (Which I suspect won't ever be -- but this is a
completely unscientific personal opinion :)


> A simple example, using the theory of gravity I can predict what will
> happen if I hold my pen waist high and release it. If the predicted
> result matches the theory then I have reinforced the validity of the
> theory with more evidence. If the result falsifies the prediction then
> the theory must be re-evaluated as to its validity. 

Exactly. What is the (scientific, no less) theory that is behind the "and
not likely to change anytime soon" affirmation? It is not, just to take
this out of the way, the laws of thermodynamics, because it is not about
them: it is about whether someone might be able to come up "anytime soon"
with something that nobody (or at least not Tony) has considered so far
(theory, process, technology, whatever). Is there a scientific theory about
the probability of such an event (as the affirmation was talking about
exactly this)? If so, I stand corrected. (Would it contain a "Tony
constant"? It would have to, I think :)  If not... ??


> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Scientific_method for further
> details. 

Exactly -- especially trying to relate the "basic facets" of
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_scientific_method>
(also <http://tinyurl.com/yw6hqg>) to the affirmation in question (and to
any prediction of the future in general) could be interesting :)

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist