4 ms·

> But it does stop being science when you abandon testable predictions. No it doesn't. This is a common myth, but if you look at astronomy or biology you will

> But it does stop being science when you abandon testable predictions. No it doesn't. This is a common myth, but if you look at astronomy or biology you will obviously see that is not the case. Observational science does not require experiments. Yes, experiments provide more rigorous evidence, but to deny that observation also provides evidence is quite frankly to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Our entire science of classification would be moot. And these aren't even soft sciences, they are also hard science.

AmericanChopper 8y ago
Observation is empirical. I genuinely think you’re confused about what science is. It is entirely based on empirical evidence. Broadly speaking it is one source of truth and knowledge, and while there are other sources of truth and knowledge that are also valid, being valid alone doesn’t make them science.
- aldoushuxley001 8y ago
  If it's entirely based on empirical evidence, then why is subject experience excluded from science?
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    Because rigorous scientific inquiry holds evidence to certain standards, like being measurable and repeatable for instance. Which is why fields that struggle to collect high-quality evidence, like psychology for instance (and other fields to a greater extent), are typically referred to as "soft sciences". While they follow some of the same methodology as other sciences, the evidence they collect and the measurements they make tend to be quite subjective and imprecise. Psychology is probably a decent example here, as it has come up with a few tests that are reproducible (like IQ tests), and even manages to make some predictions given large enough sets of subjects, which is the only reason it's considered any form of science at all. Philosophy at the other end of the spectrum tends to almost never make any measurable predictions at all.
tripletao 8y ago
A testable prediction doesn't require an experiment. Observational science is full of falsifiable predictions, just predictions that can't be tested without more time elapsed, more money spent, etc.--"that star in the Little Dipper will always appear stationary, with all the other stars rotating around it", "the carnivores we find in future will have shorter intestines than the herbivores", "no one will discover a language without subordinate clauses", etc.
- aldoushuxley001 8y ago
  What about systems of classification, like that animal is a zebra because it has x,y,z features? There's little to be tested there, but it is enormously useful and very foundational to science.
  - tripletao 8y ago
    I'd see classification more as a means of organizing scientific knowledge, and less as scientific knowledge itself. (Like, the question of whether a result belongs to algebra or number theory isn't math. Those are just labels that we assign in the way we think we makes the body of knowledge most understandable.) A classification is often somewhat arbitrary--a biologist and a furrier might classify rodents differently, and both have the most useful system for their respective work. Though if you specify the basis for your classification, then I think the classification itself can become a testable prediction. You might have a category for "animals with features X and Y", because you've only ever found animals with both. This is implicitly the testable prediction that those two features will occur together. If you found a black-and-white-striped horse-shaped carnivore, then the biologists would surely consider something to have been falsified...
vertexFarm 8y ago
Astronomy and biology absolutely feature testable predictions. Science really can't happen without that feature. It's certainly not a myth. If you make a prediction that by its nature cannot be tested, you really can't do anything useful with it.
- sideshowb 8y ago
  What about interpretations of quantum mechanics? I'd argue these are scientific, but nobody has any idea how to test them just yet. They might do one day. But if we weren't willing to talk about them before they were testable then nobody would be inspired to develop the necessary tests. The fact that they're an essential part of the scientific process makes them science as far as I'm concerned. If it helps make up your mind, plenty of people called scientists spend time thinking about them.
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    There are lots of tests for quantum mechanics, it’s probably the most rigorously tested theory in physics. Some parts of quantum theories are inferred, but they’re inferred from data collected in reproducible tests. Also, any part of quantum theory that hasn’t been confirmed by experiment has scientists working to do just that. If something was untestable and thought to never be testable in the future, then it wouldn’t be considered science.

AmericanChopper 8y ago

Observation is empirical. I genuinely think you’re confused about what science is. It is entirely based on empirical evidence. Broadly speaking it is one source of truth and knowledge, and while there are other sources of truth and knowledge that are also valid, being valid alone doesn’t make them science.

aldoushuxley001 8y ago
If it's entirely based on empirical evidence, then why is subject experience excluded from science?
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  Because rigorous scientific inquiry holds evidence to certain standards, like being measurable and repeatable for instance. Which is why fields that struggle to collect high-quality evidence, like psychology for instance (and other fields to a greater extent), are typically referred to as "soft sciences". While they follow some of the same methodology as other sciences, the evidence they collect and the measurements they make tend to be quite subjective and imprecise. Psychology is probably a decent example here, as it has come up with a few tests that are reproducible (like IQ tests), and even manages to make some predictions given large enough sets of subjects, which is the only reason it's considered any form of science at all. Philosophy at the other end of the spectrum tends to almost never make any measurable predictions at all.

tripletao 8y ago

A testable prediction doesn't require an experiment. Observational science is full of falsifiable predictions, just predictions that can't be tested without more time elapsed, more money spent, etc.--"that star in the Little Dipper will always appear stationary, with all the other stars rotating around it", "the carnivores we find in future will have shorter intestines than the herbivores", "no one will discover a language without subordinate clauses", etc.

aldoushuxley001 8y ago
What about systems of classification, like that animal is a zebra because it has x,y,z features? There's little to be tested there, but it is enormously useful and very foundational to science.
- tripletao 8y ago
  I'd see classification more as a means of organizing scientific knowledge, and less as scientific knowledge itself. (Like, the question of whether a result belongs to algebra or number theory isn't math. Those are just labels that we assign in the way we think we makes the body of knowledge most understandable.) A classification is often somewhat arbitrary--a biologist and a furrier might classify rodents differently, and both have the most useful system for their respective work. Though if you specify the basis for your classification, then I think the classification itself can become a testable prediction. You might have a category for "animals with features X and Y", because you've only ever found animals with both. This is implicitly the testable prediction that those two features will occur together. If you found a black-and-white-striped horse-shaped carnivore, then the biologists would surely consider something to have been falsified...

vertexFarm 8y ago

Astronomy and biology absolutely feature testable predictions. Science really can't happen without that feature. It's certainly not a myth. If you make a prediction that by its nature cannot be tested, you really can't do anything useful with it.

sideshowb 8y ago
What about interpretations of quantum mechanics? I'd argue these are scientific, but nobody has any idea how to test them just yet. They might do one day. But if we weren't willing to talk about them before they were testable then nobody would be inspired to develop the necessary tests. The fact that they're an essential part of the scientific process makes them science as far as I'm concerned. If it helps make up your mind, plenty of people called scientists spend time thinking about them.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  There are lots of tests for quantum mechanics, it’s probably the most rigorously tested theory in physics. Some parts of quantum theories are inferred, but they’re inferred from data collected in reproducible tests. Also, any part of quantum theory that hasn’t been confirmed by experiment has scientists working to do just that. If something was untestable and thought to never be testable in the future, then it wouldn’t be considered science.