Just Cocky wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>
>>>Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly
>>>>>subjects of science.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How about string theory?
>>>
>>>
>>>String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are
>>>exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a
>>>testable prediction, it will fade away.
>>>
>>>Jerry
>>
>>So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class,
>>because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the
>>establishment of a pasta deity.
>>
>
>
> String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it
> is, in principle, falsifiable.

So if it's falsified, then it's a valid scientific theory? Please
explain this further. I don't get it.

You have to believe, in principle, that there is an experiment that
will refute the theory that no one (as yet) can figure out how to
validate. It seems to me like this is a step in faith or at least a
philosophical argument. A better theory might come along in principle,
but the same is also true of religion.