On 12/12/2016 1:24 PM, Clark Goble wrote:
I don’t like the term “legitimate” precisely because it’s ambiguous.
However I think good theories are theories that allow us to inquire
about their truthfulness by making somewhat testable predictions.
I agree with both points.
I think that some of the objections arise from different uses
of the word 'theory'. Logicians typically use the word 'theory'
for the deductive closure of a set of propositions called axioms.
They impose no constraints the relevance or applicability of
the axioms to any kind of phenomena.
But scientists make a three-way distinction of hypotheses,
theories, and laws:
1. A law is a theory that has been thoroughly tested on some
observable phenomena and shown to be reliable in making
predictions about the future development of those phenomena.
2. A theory is a hypothesis that has some relevance to some
observable phenomena about which it makes some testable
predictions. But its reliability has not yet been
sufficiently tested for it to be accepted as a law.
3. A hypothesis is any theory in the logicians' sense.
No tests of relevance or reliability have yet been made.
This distinction allows anyone to suggest a hypothesis at
any time -- there is no penalty for proposing something
irrelevant or untestable. Then a community of inquirers may
choose to collaborate in exploring some interesting hypotheses
to determine which might be sufficiently promising for further
development.
John
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
