Speculation vs Scientific Theory

On Sep 14, 9:42*pm, "David Staup" wrote:
"vtcapo" wrote in message

...
On Sep 14, 3:33 pm, "David Staup" wrote:





"vtcapo" wrote in message

....
On Sep 13, 7:07 pm, "David Staup" wrote:

this ones for you goofy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Oldershaw"

Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 4:53 PM
Subject: Speculation vs Scientific Theory

The discussion of _The Grand Design_ by Hawking and Mlodinow at
various venues gives one the impression that the distinctions between
non-scientific speculation, scientific speculation and a bona fide
scientific theory are not at all clear. I would like to submit the
following as an attempt to clarify these distinctions, which are
important to the integrity of science.

Non-Scientific Speculation:

1. The idea usually originates from a source other than well-tested
empirical/scientific knowledge. For example, a religious text or
hermetic knowledge system like alchemy or astrology.

2. Unambiguously departs from, and usually unambiguously conflicts
with well-tested empirical/scientific knowledge.

3. Any retrodictions are of poor quality, due to inexactitude, non-
uniqueness and arbitrariness.

4. The idea is unable to generate definitive predictions, which are
(a) prior, (b) feasible, (c) quantitative, (d) non-adjustable and (e)
unique to the idea being tested. In this way the idea is not
verifiable/falsifiable in any scientific manner.

Scientific Speculation:

1. The idea originates from well-tested empirical/scientific
knowledge.

2. The idea extrapolates beyond well-tested empirical/scientific
knowledge.

3. The idea can offer some supporting retrodictions that are
suggestive, but not compelling.

4. The idea is too early in its development to generate definitive
predictions.

Scientific Hypothesis/Theory/Model:

1. The idea originates from well-tested empirical/scientific
knowledge.

2. The idea extrapolates beyond well-tested empirical/scientific
knowledge.

3. The idea is able to establish significant retrodictive support in a
unique manner.

4. The idea makes at least one truly definitive prediction by which
the theory can be unambiguously falsified, or verified in the non-
absolute scientific sense of _verified_.

So David where would you place Psychic phenomena? Please don't tell me
you are of the mind set that believes it does not exist or a figment
of the imagination?

RT

Your question is ambiguous and framed as from a child ( obstinate ).
but here is the answer:

I have had myself 3 instances that I would guess fits your defination of
"psychic" phenomenon. I have followed the research some, and at this point
my opinion is that it qualifies as true "scientific speculation" but has
not
progressed further even after years of study. no "scientific hyppothesis,
theory, or model "

my "guess" for whatever it's worth is that it does exist but is rare,
un-reliable, and hard to test....for now

David, now that wasn't too difficult. Matter of fact I agree with your
comments. Particularly that it does exist, is un-reliable, and hard to
test. However I disagree that it is a rare occurrence. It happens all
the time on many levels.

Now let me ask you, by answering my question did it make you feel
child like?

RT

I don't know...why don't you describe it for me...then I'll decide

You've lost your inner child? How tragic..............

RT

"vtcapo" wrote in message
...


You've lost your inner child? How tragic..............


MY inner child is a mean little prick.






--
Forever is a really long time.... Especially towards the end.

On Sep 15, 5:56*am, "HVAC" wrote:
"vtcapo" wrote in message

...



You've lost your inner child? *How tragic..............

MY inner child is a mean little prick.

--
Forever is a really long time.... Especially towards the end.

Yes, little prick describes you. Tell us something we don't
know......

RT

On Sep 15, 5:13*am, vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 15, 5:56*am, "HVAC" wrote:

"vtcapo" wrote in message

....

You've lost your inner child? *How tragic..............

MY inner child is a mean little prick.

--
Forever is a really long time.... Especially towards the end.

Yes, little prick describes you. *Tell us something we don't
know......

RT

David, HVAC and most others are only here to screw with you. Might as
well invite Art Deco and all the other ZNRs to the party.

~ BG

On Sep 15, 5:13*am, vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 15, 5:56*am, "HVAC" wrote:

"vtcapo" wrote in message

....

You've lost your inner child? *How tragic..............

MY inner child is a mean little prick.

--
Forever is a really long time.... Especially towards the end.

Yes, little prick describes you. *Tell us something we don't
know......

RT

David, HVAC and most others are only here to screw with you. Might as
well invite Art Deco and all the other ZNRs to the party.

~ BG

"vtcapo" wrote in message
...



You've lost your inner child? How tragic..............

MY inner child is a mean little prick.


~~~Yes, little prick describes you. Tell us something we don't know......




That ain't what Barbara said...........



~
Woop! There it is.

On Sep 13, 4:07*pm, "David Staup" wrote:
this ones for you goofy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Oldershaw"

Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 4:53 PM
Subject: Speculation vs Scientific Theory

The discussion of _The Grand Design_ by Hawking and Mlodinow at
various venues gives one the impression that the distinctions between
non-scientific speculation, scientific speculation and a bona fide
scientific theory are not at all clear. I would like to submit the
following as an attempt to clarify these distinctions, which are
important to the integrity of science.

Non-Scientific Speculation:

1. The idea usually originates from a source other than well-tested
empirical/scientific knowledge. For example, a religious text or
hermetic knowledge system like alchemy or astrology.

2. Unambiguously departs from, and usually unambiguously conflicts
with well-tested empirical/scientific knowledge.

3. Any retrodictions are of poor quality, due to inexactitude, non-
uniqueness and arbitrariness.

4. The idea is unable to generate definitive predictions, which are
(a) prior, (b) feasible, (c) quantitative, (d) non-adjustable and (e)
unique to the idea being tested. In this way the idea is not
verifiable/falsifiable in any scientific manner.

Scientific Speculation:

1. The idea originates from well-tested empirical/scientific
knowledge.

2. The idea extrapolates beyond well-tested empirical/scientific
knowledge.

3. The idea can offer some supporting retrodictions that are
suggestive, but not compelling.

4. The idea is too early in its development to generate definitive
predictions.

Scientific Hypothesis/Theory/Model:

1. The idea originates from well-tested empirical/scientific
knowledge.

2. The idea extrapolates beyond well-tested empirical/scientific
knowledge.

3. The idea is able to establish significant retrodictive support in a
unique manner.

4. The idea makes at least one truly definitive prediction by which
the theory can be unambiguously falsified, or verified in the non-
absolute scientific sense of _verified_.

I have a speculation that our government hasn't told us the whole
truth and nothing but the truth for quite some time. Of course some
agencies of our government are worse than others, whereas damn few if
any are flying perfectly straight and level.

~ BG

On Sep 16, 6:37*pm, "HVAC" wrote:
"vtcapo" wrote in message

...



You've lost your inner child? How tragic..............

MY inner child is a mean little prick.

~~~Yes, little prick describes you. *Tell us something we don't know.......

That ain't what Barbara said...........

~
Woop! *There it is.

When HVAC loses an argument to me or does not get the attention he
thinks he deserves he always brings my wife into the picture as if
that will level the field. Quit jerking off and get a ****ing
date.....

RT

"vtcapo" wrote in message
...

MY inner child is a mean little prick.

~~~Yes, little prick describes you. Tell us something we don't know......

That ain't what Barbara said...........


When HVAC loses an argument to me or does not get the attention he
thinks he deserves he always brings my wife into the picture as if
that will level the field. Quit jerking off and get a ****ing
date.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Who said I was talking about your wife?

On Sep 16, 5:01*pm, vtcapo wrote:
On Sep 16, 6:37*pm, "HVAC" wrote:



"vtcapo" wrote in message

....

You've lost your inner child? How tragic..............

MY inner child is a mean little prick.

~~~Yes, little prick describes you. *Tell us something we don't know.......

That ain't what Barbara said...........

~
Woop! *There it is.

When HVAC loses an argument to me or does not get the attention he
thinks he deserves he always brings my wife into the picture as if
that will level the field. *Quit jerking off and get a ****ing
date.....

RT

Since HVAC has a long history of telling us lies, it's kinda weird
that anyone bothers to respond to anything he/she has to say.

~ BG