quote:
Ok the theory isn't being measured. Agreed.
Yes, you can't measure a theory. However, you can test a theory. Again, let's use mark24's example of cladistics and stratigraphy. The theory states that the daughter species should not be found below the parent species. Therefore, where we find these species in the fossil record tests that statement made by the theory. Therefore, evolution can be tested. Show me where my reasoning is wrong.
quote:
It is as you say the fossils in the field placement and nature? that are being measured.
And that is all that can be done with such data.
Let's switch to cosmology. Are you saying that I can not create a theory on the movement of celestial bodies by using the movement of the planets? This is in fact what you are insinuating. Are you also saying that the Germ theory is useless because all we can do is detect bacteria?
How about this. Share with us one theory that you think is testable and maybe we can go from there.
quote:
As in a criminal investagation the evidence After the crime can be used,I guess to recreate the crime BUT it can not be used to test the hypothesis of the detective. It is raw remains and not applicable to be part of a repeatable nature.
In the US, how do we convict criminals who commit crimes that were not witnessed by anyone? By evidence left at the crime scene and other places such as the suspect's home. Are you now saying that we should set all of these criminals free who were convicted with scientific evidence? How about this. Let's create a fictitious crime scene and we can walk through this together. Hopefully throught his example you can start to understand the scientific method.
Crime scene:
--The murder victim, found in a hotel room, was killed by a cut to the throat.
--Objects around the victim are broken or strewn around the room.
--The victim has $300 dollars in his wallet.
--Investigators find two types of blood, the victims and someone elses.
--There is no sign of a forced entry.
Hypotheses formed from the evidence:
The crime was probably committed by someone the victim knew. This is supported by the fact that the door was not forced open. Also, none of the victim's money was taken, which makes robbery a less likely cause. The condition of the room indicates that there was a struggle. Most likely, someone that the victim knew entered the room after knocking and being let in by the victim. There was then an argument during which a fight ensued. During this struggle, both the victim and the suspect were cut with the victim's cut being fatal and intentional.
Now, this hypothesis is consistent with the evidence. A hypothesis that someone picked the lock and killed the victim in their sleep for their money doesn't add up since the room is strewn with objects and there is money in the victim's wallet. However, it is possible that a theif did pick the lock and was startled by the person in the room. After the theif killed the victim he lost his appetite for taking his money.
So how do we TEST which theory is correct? The unidentified blood is the key. Also, the weapon was never found so whoever still possesses the weapon is probably the murderer.
First test of the hypotheses: Find out if anyone the victim knew had motive for killing the victim.
As it turns out, the victim was sleeping with his friends wife.
Second test of the hypotheses: Search the suspect's house and property for the weapon.
As it turns out, they find a knife with traces of blood. The blood matches that of the victim.
Third test of the hypotheses: Test the suspect's blood with the blood found at the crime scene.
As it turns out, they match.
Now, have we absolutely proved that the friend killed the victim? Nope. Have we proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Oh yeah. Would you agree that it is very probable that this man killed the victim even though the crime was never witnessed? If you answer yes, then you agree that the past can be investigated through evidence and hypothesis testing, and that measurements can be used to test a theory.
™ Version 4.2
