Theos-Talk Archives (May 2004 Message tt00157)

In a message dated 05/17/04 11:51:56 AM, bartl@sprynet.com writes:

>> In a message dated 05/16/04 2:14:35 PM, bartl@sprynet.com writes:
>>>netemara888 wrote:
>>>
>>>>as a trained scientist and a student of science I was taught that 
>>>>the onus is on the other scientist to disprove a theory presented, 
>>>>not to prove it. The onus is on the theoretician to postulate and 
>>>>set forth, again not to prove it is true. 
>>>
>>> OK. Suppose I had a theory that you are an alien from outer space, sent
>>>to Earth to destroy it. Can you disprove it?
>> 
>> Unfair question. That's not a scientific theory, but just an opinion.
> 
> THAT'S MY POINT!!!!!! In its simplest form, the statement, which I am
>being challenged to disprove, is, "Einstein read the Secret Doctrine."
>
>Now, use your own criteria:

Baloney. Such simplification of the original statement (in context) that 
could have been based on intuition, careful analysis, or self evident presumption, 
or hearsay evidence, is a cop out... Since the original statement is based on 
information that is not scientifically or logically arrived at, and 
therefore, not claimed as a "known" fact. If you do not believe the presumptive 
conclusion, then the burden of "disproof" lies with you. If you can't do that, then 
all you can do is say is, "I don't believe it." But, according to your 
criteria, you would be saying, "Einstein did not read the Secret Doctrine." So, 
who does the burden of proof of that rest with? And, if with you, could you 
prove it? Besides, who cares whether you believe it or not? :-)
>
>> Any theory related to any discipline of science that cannot be falsified 
and 
>> make at least one prediction, is not a proper scientific theory. A 
theoretician
>> does not have to "prove" his/her theory if it meets those qualifications.
> 
> Now, given that, where is the burden of proof?

A scientific theory is not claimed to be a fact, but is simply a hypothesis 
by a theoretical scientist. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with any 
experimental scientist who can carry out the suggested experiments or make the 
observations that verifies (or falsifies) its predictions. It follows that a 
theory is considered valid, if it meets the qualifications of falsification and 
prediction... And the original theoretician is not required to prove his theory 
-- unless he claims it as a "fact." 

To this day both the theory of relativity and the quantum theory are still 
not considered to be entirely factual -- since, some of their predictions have 
yet to be proven, and others can still be falsified. On another note, neither 
theory is consistent with the other, and cannot be considered so until string 
theory, which claims to consolidate them, can be proven. When such proofs do 
appear, it's almost a certainty that they won't come from the original 
theorist. 

Arguing with scientific statements using proven facts, is one thing, but 
arguing against statements of belief based on direct or indirect personal 
knowledge or evidence, presumptive or not, is quite another.

Leonardo

> Bart