So I Wrote A Book On The Scientific Method

The word prediction does not appear. But then the word hypothesis appears only three times, the term falsification does not appear at all, nor does the word scientific method.I don't think anyone is proposing that predicting the future is a required part of the scientific method. If you are using prediction in only that sense, then predicting the future is not required of science.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Cool. Thanks.

Not what I meant -- rather the theory explains the fossils we have found, and the prediction is that the next fossil we find will also be explained by the theory.Thus every time a fossil is found it is a test of the theory of evolution's ability to explain the fossil record.So your hypothetical explanatory theory explains the evidence we know, and the prediction is that new evidence will also be explained in the same way, and this is tested every time new evidence is found.Enjoy.

Please let me know if and when this book is published in physical form since as a librarian I am good for six copies.

I agree. In what sense are the requirement that any new fossils will fit into a nest hierarchy (e.g. no crocoducks) not predictions of the future?No, we cannot predict which X-man humanity will evolve into in the future, or even whether descendants of humans will survive. But there is no requirement for that in the scientific method.

However, we can make predictions about the kind of fossils that might be found in a specific area. The Tiktaalik (or a fish/amphibian missing link) was being looked for in the area where they found it because the rocks were the right age, and of the right environment. It was predicted something like that would be found, and they found it.That's a prediction.

I'm not arguing that predictions are not good and useful things for a theory to have, I'm asking whether they are necessary and, if so, can someone point me to a formal definition which includes it. I would have thought that someone who wrote a book on the scientific method might have included such a thing ;-)As an example I've just read the first chapter in Aker's & Sellers book 'Criminological Theories' which opens with the heading 'What is a theory?' and completely ignores the ability to predict. (Although, of course, it's inferred. Deterrence theory predicts that punishment deters crime.)Here's a couple:[Scientific theories] make statements about relationships between observable phenomena. (Berbard, Snipes, & Gerould, 2014)A theory is a set of interconnected statements or propositions that explain how two or more events or factors are related to one another. (Curren and Renzetti 2001)

Well, very briefly what I say about it is as follows:* A theory is a collection of laws and facts.* When we talk of the "predictions" of a theory, we mean its logical consequences.* These predictions divide conceivable observations into things which can happen if the theory is true and things which can't.* We gain confidence in a theory if we go on seeing the things it says we can see and not the things it says we can't see. And, of course, we lose confidence if we see the things it says we can't see.* This is the only test of a theory. Although a theory can do other things for us --- in particular, it can explain things --- its utility in this respect can't be used to judge whether a theory is true. (In those instances where you think its explanatory power is so impressive as to confirm the theory, it can always be shown that there is an equivalent and related aspect of its predictive power which is what is really making the theory credible.)Now these last few facts don't appear in the definition of a theory --- just as the definition of a good wine doesn't appear in the definition of wine. But they're still true.

This also shows that we don't need to have experienced the past to explain it, to theorize about it, and to test those theories with new evidence.Enjoy

Predictions are necessary because they are a required part of the scientific method. If you are looking at definitions of theory that do not even mention the scientific method, you are not looking in the right place.It is possible to talk about theories without discussing details of how they are tested. That's why your search technique is not working.

Quite so. So I expect you will be able to demonstrate that rather than simply assert it. That's all I'm asking. Point me to an authorative source.

Try this.

Or here's a nice short argument; if people like it I'll add it to the appropriate place in my book.On the one hand, for every prediction there is a test: if a theory predicts something, then by seeing if that something is the case, we'd be testing the theory.But on the other hand, for every test there is a prediction. Because if some procedure really does put a theory to the test --- that is, if failing the test would discredit the theory --- then to affirm the truth of the theory is to predict that it will pass the test.

It is difficult to avoid finding an authoritative source providing exactly what you require. My question, asked several times is how you avoided finding references yourself, and I've pointed out your errors. To find references you simply look for sources describing the scientific method rather than for those simply discussing theory.http://www.colby.edu/biology/BI17x/expt_method.html
Scientific Method
http://carm.org/scientific-method
Scientific method - WikipediaIf you want to insist on finding your response in an authoritative article, you can conduct your search on google scholar.See page 81 of the following law review article.http://illinoislawreview.org/...ent/articles/2002/4/Ulen.pdfArticle contrasting types of prediction:LMU BuildMy point was that your own arguments indicating that prediction might not be required were nonsense. Is failing to find "prediction" on a single talkorigins page that does not describe the details of testing theories more persuasive than a wikipedia article describing prediction as a vital part of the scientific method?I challenge you to find a serious article on the scientific method that does not require prediction as a method of testing hypothesis. I asked you for references, but you did not see any reason to answer my request or my criticisms of what you did provide.

My request was to find an authoritative source for the definition of a theory that includes prediction as being a necessary part. I provided two quotes which don't contain it and a book which has a whole chapter dedicated to describing a theory which does not mention predictive ability at all.I agree that both random websites and random scientific papers use the terms but that is not what I asked.