On 13 May 2014 20:50, <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 12:38:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > >> On 13 May 2014 11:29, John Ross <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I don’t believe I have claimed that my theory is “superior” to existing >>> theories or that it will “work better” or that it is an “explanatory >>> improvement” over existing theories. >>> >> >> Then what motivated you to come up with it? >> >>> >>> >>> I do believe it is closer to the truth than existing theories and that >>> it is a simpler and easier to understand theory as compared to existing >>> theories. >>> >> >> OK. That is essentially a rephrasing of "superior", "explanatory >> improvement", etc. A theory should (in theory!) satisfy some criteria to be >> accepted as scientific ... >> >> * it should explain ("retrodict") all the existing observational >> evidence >> >> * it should predict the results of observations that have not yet been >> made, preferably making different predictions from existing theories. >> (Preferably ones that are surprising!) >> > > Where does Bruno's theory do this? > > Ask Bruno :-)
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
