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 Carneslab@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.