Jean-Marc Perreault asked: >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?
Paul Brandon replied: >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 suspect Paul may be thinking of some other confirmation of general relativity. Einstein developed general relativity over a number of years, publishing several papers along the way. In 1915 he published his latest version of general relativity from which he derived an accurate figure for the anomalous advance of the perihelion of Mercury (unexplained by Newtonian theory). An important aspect of Einstein's theory was that he spelled out its predictions and in one instance he stated how it could be tested. This is the bending of light in a gravitational field, verified fairly closely in 1919 by Eddington's expedition during a solar eclipse to measure the bending of starlight passing close to the sun. For discussion of the first two verifications of general relativity: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC-Privileged%20Planet&id=2150 There are other tests of the theory, not possible to undertake at the time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity On the general issue of untestable theories, I understand that "string theory" has as yet no falsifiable conjectures (though that's all I understand about it!). ------------------------------------ Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:44:08 -0500 Author: Paul Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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]
