3 ms·

> Science requires testable explanations. No it doesn't. Science aims to characterise phenomena. Normally, this just means describing the outcomes of a repeat

> Science requires testable explanations. No it doesn't. Science aims to characterise phenomena. Normally, this just means describing the outcomes of a repeatable scenario – pretty much what redcircle stated. It may seem like science can explain some phenomena but that's really only because multiple observable levels below the surface phenomena have been fully characterised. But for any phenomena, if you dwell down through all of the characterised layers, there's always a point at which science can only probabilistically describe what happens, it can't explain why.

lutusp 14y ago
>> Science requires testable explanations. > No it doesn't. Name a legitimate science that is not defined by its testable explanations. Physics has the Standard Model. Biology has evolution, genetics and cell biology, all well-tested theories. We know astrology is not a science because its theories fail when tested. Is your argument that astrology would become a science by not having testable theories? Without testing, without evidence, a scientific idea has no standing. It's not science until there is empirical evidence in support of an idea (or that falsifies the idea). Without empirical confirmation or falsification, it's philosophy, not science. > Normally, this just means describing the outcomes of a repeatable scenario Every time I go outside at night, there are these little points of light in the sky. I don't know what they are, but they're the same every time I look. So ... I just became a scientist. Yes? Contrast that description with a proposed, testable explanation -- that those points of light are thermonuclear furnaces like our sun but at a greater distance. We can test this idea, possibly falsify it. Falsifiability is a requirement for science, but one cannot falsify a description -- for that, we need a proposed explanation. > ... there's always a point at which science can only probabilistically describe what happens, it can't explain why. That's not science, it's philosophy. Science requires a collision between falsifiable explanations and empirical evidence.

lutusp 14y ago

>> Science requires testable explanations. > No it doesn't. Name a legitimate science that is not defined by its testable explanations. Physics has the Standard Model. Biology has evolution, genetics and cell biology, all well-tested theories. We know astrology is not a science because its theories fail when tested. Is your argument that astrology would become a science by not having testable theories? Without testing, without evidence, a scientific idea has no standing. It's not science until there is empirical evidence in support of an idea (or that falsifies the idea). Without empirical confirmation or falsification, it's philosophy, not science. > Normally, this just means describing the outcomes of a repeatable scenario Every time I go outside at night, there are these little points of light in the sky. I don't know what they are, but they're the same every time I look. So ... I just became a scientist. Yes? Contrast that description with a proposed, testable explanation -- that those points of light are thermonuclear furnaces like our sun but at a greater distance. We can test this idea, possibly falsify it. Falsifiability is a requirement for science, but one cannot falsify a description -- for that, we need a proposed explanation. > ... there's always a point at which science can only probabilistically describe what happens, it can't explain why. That's not science, it's philosophy. Science requires a collision between falsifiable explanations and empirical evidence.