Re: testability and hypotheses

[tonyc@foe.co.uk (Tony Canning)]

Kenneth Carpenter wrote:
> I had for a long time come to 
>realize that there is much in science that can not be proven,hence 
>tested, but had kept my mouth closed for fear of criticism. I distinctly 
>remember being instructed in a biology lab that hypothesis must be 
>formulated in such a manner so as to be testable, i.e. Popperian science 
>after Karl Popper who basically stated such.  

If you agree with Popper (as I tend to), _nothing_ in science is provable, 
but everything is theoretically disprovable; we may not yet have the evidence
to disprove certain things, but that is not the point.

The historical sciences (I would argue that most of biology is historical in
nature) such as palaeontology have obvious practical difficulties - much 
useful evidence will never be found.  But surely we can collect evidence using
scientific methodology (statistics, measurements, etc etc) and use it to 
construct and continually refine hypotheses.  And we can reject certain 
hypotheses (eg sauropods were aquatic, therapods were slow and stupid) with a
high degree of confidence.  That is why we certainly have a more accurate
picture of dinosaurs than, say, Owen, Cope or Marsh had.

Pure speculation with no evidence one way or the other is not science, and can
therefore have no place in the science of palaeontology.  But it is fun, and
is a totally valid human activity.  It can also inspire the imagination and may
lead to good (testable) science in a roundabout kind of way.  That is why, IMHO,
it has a place on this list.

Tony Canning
tonyc@foe.co.uk