And again you have a failed understanding of the scientific method. Untested is not an issue. To be a scientific hypothesis it has to be testable, ie it has to be falsifiable. It does not have to be already tested. Science is applying the scientific method to natural phenomena. It is possible to apply the scientific method to unnatural phenomena, but they would not still be science.Really? It doesn't seem so to me. My interlocutor wasn't saying anything about testability; he was talking about testing (i.e. practice, not conceptual) and basing propositions on observations. My point was twofold:
1) Plenty of science originates from untested propositions.
2) Other disciplines do testing and revision all the time; if that's what's supposed to distinguish science, it doesn't do a very good job.
This is not what I have said, I do not think you are anti-science, but ignorant of how science works.Anyway, before we continue, you seem to have the idea that I'm somehow anti-science. This is not correct. I have a great deal of respect for science. I am very critical of certain interpretations of science, however, and I believe I have good reason to be.
I did not say that Special Relativity is not a theory. I said the paper presented in 1905 was not a theory. It had at that time not been tested. To be a theory, a hypothesis must undergo testing. It is all part of the scientific process. Theories do not leap whole form from observation. That does not mean that prior to being a theory it is not science. Also the postulates where derived from observations at that time, most importantly the Michelson-Morley experiments(which where a wonderful set and the mechanism used was simply brilliant). While the things you mentioned where possible, they where also not nearly as likely. Further, if the Michelson-Morley experiments where faulty, then the predictions made by the 1905 paper would have failed experimental testing. See how wonderful the scientific method is, it checks itself.With that out of the way, let's discuss this
a little more carefully.
First, I'm not sure I understand why you'd say special relativity isn't a theory (at least here, though you seem to say that it is elsewhere). But that aside, those two postulates were not determined by the available observations. By that, I just mean that the available observations didn't make the postulates inevitable (indeed, how could they?). Before the experiments that are taken to confirm relativity occurred, it was just as likely (and was in fact proposed) that the MM aparatus was faulty. Or that the properties of the aethyr were not sufficiently understood. Or even that the data was falsified, or etc.
Einstein revived Galileo's proposition of relative inertial frames, and mixed in the notion that light in a vaccuum has an absolute velocity. From there, as you note, he deduced what might be observed. But just what role can deduction, which is entirely independent of observation, play in science? If it is to play a role, it seems perforce that philosophy plays a role in science. Since my initial point was simply that science is much more difficult to distinguish from other areas than most people believe, this is a relevant point.
Further, if all it takes for something to be science is to be "based on" observations, then of course special relativity was science. But then, so is a lot of stuff that I bet you wouldn't want to see counted as science. For instance, was Locke's philosophy of mind, "based on" the notion of the mind as Tabula Rasa at birth which was in turn "based on" the best available observations science? I suspect you'd probably think not. But how is that case distinguishable from relativity in principle? If you're going to try to define science, you'll have to do better than this.
Deduction itself is not science, but deduction that lends itself to testing is. That is in fact what the scientific method is. Make a deduction based on current observation. Make a prediction that can then be tested, test. Again, the problem is not with science, the problem is with your faulty understanding of what science is and how it works. I am not familiar with Locke's work so cannot comment, but did his observations lead to a testable hypothesis that could falsify his hypothesis? If so then it does qualify as science. Whether I agree with a theory or hypothesis is irrelevant to whether it is part of the scientific process.
Any time you argue that an untested hypothesis, such as the 1905 paper is not yet science.Where did I say otherwise?
How so?Again, this seems either to be false, or to include too much.
The rest of this is just nonsense. You are trying too hard to sound smart, while espousing a grade school level of understanding of the scientific process.Well, I came up with all of it, and didn't visit any websites to find it. I did spend about ten years in undergraduate and graduate courses at reputable and accredited universities in the U.S., several of which were devoted to the practice, history, and philosophy of science, from which I managed to distill most of my views. In any case, I made no similar remarks to my interlocutors; your words here are rather insulting.
What does that even mean? How do you build something from observation? It seems rather that we build hypotheses from symbols which encode interpretations of observations. Which goes to my point about Quine-Duhem.
This approach hardly seems fruitful. I might just as easily lambast your entire post, and we could just exchange that way. But what would be exchanged? Certainly not ideas, and it'd hardly be a debate. So I can hardly credit this tactic. And I don't think the moon landing was faked.
No, it's not.
"I am not among those who fear the people. They and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1816 "[F]acts are before ideas." -- Mikhail Bakunin, 1882
"If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself." ~ Martin Heidegger
No, it is religious theory
Libertarian and Atheist...wow I'm a hated man.