scientific theories and scientific vacuousness

["Colette H. Adams" <cadams@hh.gpz.org>]

I believe it was Padian who said in Sci Am that the argument with Feduccia
had ceased to be scientific a decade ago.  No, there is nothing
scientifically wrong with proposing alternatives.  The problem, which
arises time and again, is that having developed a theory, its defenders
then proceed to brace it up, as evidence comes in against it, with
unfalsifiable auxillary hypotheses.  The whole point of a scientific
hypothesis is that there is some evidence that can falsify it.  None of us
have any business proposing a theory in science unless we can specify what
piece(s) of evidence we will accept as falsifying it.  If we will accept
nothing as such evidence, we should acknowledge that our theory (whether it
is right or wrong) is NOT scientific.  This is exactly what creationists
refuse to do (sorry, Mickey, didn't mean to use the C word).

As far as the media is concerned, the weight given to scientific hypotheses
by either the popular press or major scientific journals doesn't really
concern me.  Many seem to be concerned that large numbers of people are
getting "the wrong idea" about dinosaurs and other issues in science.  The
average American high school senior barely knows the difference between
astronomy and astrology, much less what science, zoology, or dinosaurs are
about.  I wouldn't sweat it.  It is for each one of us to pursue our own
truth, by whatever means.  Those who have ears to hear will hear.  Those
who have the gift (or the curse) to search and learn and doggedly pursue
answers will find their own way.  As for where a particular hypothesis
falls along the authority/heresy scale within the scientific community at
any particular time, I have previously pointed out the scientific
vacuousness of having an "official" working hypothesis on any given
subject.  Keep your mind open and skeptical and you will do fine.

Best regards,

Dave