Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
> 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.

A theory is "scientific" if one can make some prediction based
on the theory, and then design an experiment to see if the prediction
holds. Some theories pass this test, others don't. What we know as
"science" is the set of theories that repeatedly pass this test.

Rune