On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:58:18 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
<[email protected]> 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.
>

If it's falsifibale, it's neither valid nor invalid. It's simply a
theory that can be called scientific. Given that there is no empirical
evidence for or against such theory, it's therefore speculative.

>
> 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.
>

The tests certianly exist. But they require access to very high energy
levels. The inability to test right now is essentially technological.

>
>It seems to me like this is a step in faith or at least a
>philosophical argument.
>

Faith for what? The theory either works or not. No one know right now.
Where's the faith?