Re: testability and hypotheses (long)

[Crpntr@ix.netcom.com (Kenneth Carpenter)]

Ron Orenstein wrote:
>The trouble, of course, with speculation like this is that it is
>utterly untestable

My response was :
> That's OK in science.  It is a healthy way of expanding our horizons
> and stimulating thought.  Face it, no one would have thought why
> tail club mimicry couldn't have happened unless someone suggested
> that it could.  Who knows what testable hypothesis might develop
> from someone out to disprove Tony's hypothesis?

To which Mickey Rowe wrote to me (slightly edited):
>If you'd like to air this in public,
>feel free to include my text in a message to the list.
>
>Your response troubled and then confused me.  I was surprised to see
>you claim that untestability is "OK in science" because my
>understanding is that testability is probably the most important
>distinction to be made between ideas that are scientific vs. those
>that are not.  Your continuation was confusing because your suggestion
>that the tail club mimicry scenario could be falsified implies that
>there is a way of putting the idea to a test, and seems, therefore,
>somewhat of a non sequitir.

My response:
     Last summer I enjoyed several discussions about testability in 
science with Mike Williams (Cleveland Mus Nat'l Hist). Mike had come out 
as a guest to our Caqon City digs.  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.  Being the independent 
person I was, I convinced the TA to allow me to design my own Popperian 
exeriment for one of our labs.  Being young, I wanted to prove my worth 
as a scientist, doing the correct scientist "thing."  But as I got 
older, did more research on my own, I realized that there is a lot in 
paleontology that can not be tested without a time machine.
     Anyway, in my discussions with Mike, he voiced some of my own 
unspoken observations, but in a more defined way. Indeed, he discussed 
the topic at some length in his 1994 paper "Catastrophic versus 
noncatastrophic extinction of the dinosaurs: testing, falsification, and 
the burden of proof.  Journal of Paleontology 68:183-190."  The 
references, in fact, show that others have also realized this heresy (oh 
shock!), notably a study by Kern et al (1983, Scientists' understanding 
of propositional logic: an experimental investigation; Social Studies of 
Science 13:131-146).  They conclude that the role of falsification may 
not be as critical as is often argued.
     To focus on one area as an example, I would argue that almost all 
that we infer about dinosaur behavior is not testable.  Why, because we 
can not deal with the living organism.  We make inferences, draw 
conclusions from living analogies (note how often modern birds, mammals 
and reptiles are drawn into discussions about dinosaurs, such the 
present discussions on hopping theropods), etc.  I would even argue that 
we have no proof that dinosaurs roamed in herds.  Yes, yes, I know the 
arguements about bone beds, trackways, etc., having published on those 
topics.  But again, we are drawing inferences that may not be valid.  
That is why paleobehavioral papers are full of terms like "might have," 
"probable," etc. i.e. conditional terms (cover your ass phrases). 
    With regards to the tail club non sequitor, I did not say that I 
could test the hypothesis, but I don't discount the possibility of 
someone far more clever than me doing so.  My phraseology was a way of 
covering my ass :) 
    I could go on, but because this is getting long, I'll let someone 
else speak (P.S. my firing squad is set for six AM).