Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
I Disagree

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on June 4, 2002 14:53:57 UTC

Mario,

***Well, the quote you refer to isn't mine, but Sam's. But I do agree with him on this one. If it isn't observable and verifiable, it isn't scientific, by definition.***

There are many scientific unobservables (e.g., quarks). The key is that the theory must have predictive observables. There can still be unobservables. I think this is what you meant, but I don't think Sam is aware of this issue.

Warm regards, Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins