Pauli and the neutrino is another example. Paul's comment on the false analogy is good, too. I would also add that people like Einstein, Pauli, and Newton invented constructs *because they were forced to it by the data*. There are to my knowledge no data on ESP that would force one to reconsider physics.
m -----Original Message----- From: Paul Brandon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 1:44 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Cc: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: Re: Einstein and Falsifiability Leading to ESP's At 11:36 AM -0700 9/7/05, Jean-Marc Perreault wrote: >Greetings! > I'm thoroughly enjoying this return to class! I'm >presently reading up on the distinction between science and >pseudoscience, and although much of the information is not new, it >feels so good to read it again! Going back to the basics! > >Anyhow, here's a statement from Stephen Gould (1987) as quoted in >Stanovich, (2004): > > "What good to science is a lovely idea that cannot, as a matter >of principle, ever be affirmed or denied?" > >I wtend to agree with this idea. Of course, falsifiability is an >essential criterion for any idea to be valuable to science. But here's >the question I have: > >Have there been cases where a theory (I'm thinking of Einstein's theory >of relativity, for example, with which I am not very >familiar) has seemed very good, but in practical terms, untestable with >the tools of the time (thus unfalsifiable)? And after a certain time >period had elapsed, the theory was shown to hold up when tools were >developed? This did in fact happen with Relativity. A crucial test had to wait about 50 years until the position of the planet Mercury could be measured with sufficient precision to demonstrate the Relativity predicted its position more accurately than did classical Newtonian mechanics. >I'm asking this becasue I already know what will come out in class when >we touch on ESP's... We cannot yet measure the "energies" with the >tools we have. But one day we will... etc.. etc..etc... This >definitely relates to the topic we recently discussed, Healing Touch >(which is starting today at the College... I'll have to go >investigate...) False analogy. The existence of the above 'energies' would mean that most of modern biology and physics were wrong. This is not a question of needing more accurate measurement; it's one ofpositing that we might someday be able to measure things that we currently have no (scientific) reason to believe exist, and that contradict what we _have_ measured. -- * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://www.mnsu.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html * --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
