carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (10/05/84)
[] In response to a recent request of Paul Dubois, here is a definition of "scientific theory", cribbed from an article by Robert Root-Bernstein in _Science_and_Creationism_ , ed. Ashley Montagu, Ox. U. Press (1984) (herewith highly recommended). I'm not claiming that this is the only possible definition, but I think it's worth considering. Root-Bernstein says that a scientific theory must fulfill four sets of criteria: 1. LOGICAL criteria. A theory must be: a) a simple, unifying idea that postulates nothing unnecessary ("Occam's Razor"); b) logically consistent internally; c) logically falsifiable (i.e., cases must exist in which the theory could be imagined to be invalid); d) clearly limited by explicitly stated boundary conditions so that it is clear whether or not any particular data are or are not relevant to the verification or falsification of the theory. 2. EMPIRICAL criteria. A theory must: a) be empirically testable itself or lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable; b) actually make VERIFIED predictions and/or retrodictions; c) concern reproducible results; d) provide criteria for the interpretation of data as facts, artifacts, anomalies, or as irrelevant. 3. SOCIOLOGICAL criteria. A theory must: a) resolve recognized problems, paradoxes, and/or anomalies irresolvable on the basis of preexisting scientific theories; b) pose a new set of scientific problems upon which scientists may work; c) posit a "paradigm" or problem-solving model by which these new problems may be expected to be resolved; d) provide definitions of concepts or operations beneficial to the problem-solving abilities of other scientists. 4. HISTORICAL criteria. A theory must: a) meet or surpass all of the criteria set by its predecessors or demonstrate that any abandoned criteria are artifactual; b) be able to accrue the epistemological status acquired by previous theories through their history of testing---or, put another way, be able to explain ALL of the data gathered under previous relevant theories in terms either of fact or artifact (no anomalies allowed); c) be consistent with all preexisting ancillary theories that already have established scientific validity. According to Root-Bernstein, evolutionary theory meets all these tests, while creationism flunks them all except for 1(a). --Richard Carnes
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (10/16/84)
Richard Carnes has presented Root-Bernstein's ideas on theories. Permit me to counter with those of Dr. John N. Moore, Professor (now Emeritus) of Natural Science at Michigan State, from Zola Levitt's _Creation: A Scientist's Choice_, p.94 Criteria for a Good Scientific Theory Below, rigorous criteria for identification of a proper scientific theory are provided. These criteria are quoted from an outstanding textbook for physical science. Qualifications 1 and 3 are very important to any conceptualization of first origins. Very critical is the fact that no "prior observations" are possible, since no man observed first origins, life, or humankind; nor is it possible to "check with experience by test" in any manner when objective considerations are given to first origins. Three qualification have already been cited: 1. A fruitful theory *correlates many separate facts*, particularly the important *prior observations*, in a logical preferably easily grasped structure of thought. 2. In the course of continued use it *suggests new relations* and stimulate directed research. 3. The theory permits us to deduce predictions that *check with experience* by test, and it is useful for clearing up puzzling difficulties and solving practical problems. The history of science has shown that a good theory frequently has, in addition to the three attributes above, one or more of the following three: 4. When the smoke of initial battle has lifted, the more successful of two rival theories often turns out to be the one that is simpler in the sense that it involves *fewer basic assumptions or hypotheses*. 5. A theory is more readily accpetable to contemporary scientists if its *postulates or assumptions are plausible*. 6. Successful theory is flexible enough to grow, and to *undergo modifications* where necessary. [From Chapter 8, "On the Nature of Scientific Theory," in _Foundation of Modern Physical Science_ by Horton and Holler (pub. by Addison-Wesley).] On the next page, Moore continues: "On the basis of the previous list of criteria for discerning a proper theory, is the so-called theory of evolution scientific? No. In no way are any prior observations of the first stages of the universe, of first life, or the first humankind possible." For these and other reasons, the proper terminology is MODELS of origins, whether creation or evolution. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.