So I Wrote A Book On The Scientific Method

You made the argument that Popper did not use the word prediction. What was the point of that argument? Instead it turns out to be that Popper says prediction is required for all four of the lines of inquiry used to test a theory. But you could not seem to find that even after turning to the page on which Popper wrote it.Who missed the nuance?

Seems to be a common misconception because we do typically apply theories as fact and the testing / prediction aspect is not explicitly stated, but they do go on behind the scenes, so to speak. No one says "If the ToE (or whatever theory) is true ... THEN ..." Instead they investigate phenomena based on the application of accepted theories, which implicitly provide testing and confirmation.HBD

I think there is a less subtle issue involved. Surely the theory subsumes the hypothesis or hypothesis that were tested, which it seems everyone agrees were evaluated by looking at predictions in one way or another. How then can the resulting theory not make those same predictions? The scientific method for formulating and theories ensures that those theories make predictions.I am certainly not claiming that every time we use the inverse square law to calculate the trajectory of a body in the solar system that we are "testing" either Newton's law of gravitation or General Relativity. That would be somewhat pedantic. But when we start our calculation by assuming that the unperturbed orbit is a conic section, we are certainly using a conclusion deductively derived from Newton's law of gravitation. Those conclusions are exactly what we all mean by predictions. And if we manage to apply it to obtain a new solution of the three-body problem, then we have yet another conclusion or prediction.I also understand that prediction can be used in another sense, namely foretelling a yet to be discovered phenomenon. But apparently that issue is not what we are wrestling with here.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

http://strangebeautiful.com/...ogic-scientific-discovery.pdf

I agree with pretty much all of that.

You demonstrate here, as I acknowledged, that you can find page 9. What I note here, as I did before, is that on that same page, Popper also says that predictions (deductive conclusions) are a part all of the four of the methods that can be used, and are always required.So you miscounted the methods, and you missed the point entirely. And there was no need to search for any further detail. You simply needed to read the detail that you had already found.And you still haven't addressed the argument I mention, namely insisting that not finding the word "prediction" in a chapter actually means something.From Message 103: Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'm done here.I now understand why it has not been possible for anyone to find a simple definition of a theory that refers to predictions and why it is possible for a chapter of a book describing what a theory is, to omit the word prediction and all its similes and still be correct. I'll leave you to progress with Popper and try to understand what he's actually saying.

Another way to say it is that the application of theory gives us knowledge we can build on. If the foundation of our knowledge is bad, then the whole house will come crumbling down. If the house continues to stand upright, and withstands massive storms from new data, then the foundation is strong.From an idealist perspective, this is not how we should do science. However, from a pragmatic perspective we don't have all the time in the world, so we make leaps and forge ahead.

Well, no. Anomolies, behaviours that do not fit with the predictions of otherwise highly validated theories, are in part how science progresses.Why are we looking for dark matter? Because the results predicted by our otherwise highly successful theories don't fit with the observed facts. So we know something is missing from our overall theory.How did Newtonian physics get superseded by relativity and quantum mechanics? Again - Anomolies in expected results (AKA predictions). But Newtonian mechanics didn't suddenly change it's status from fact to theory or vice versa because of this did it?That we can successfully predict a lot of things doesn't suddenly make our theory a fact. And the discovery of anomoloies where observation doesn't fit theory doesn't suddenly make facts into theories either. As per the examples above in the case of well established theories with a track record of successful predictions it is rarely a case of disproof so much as paradigm shift

quote:

---

An epistemological paradigm shift was called a "scientific revolution" by epistemologist and historian of science Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

​

A scientific revolution occurs, according to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies that cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has thereto been made. The paradigm, in Kuhn's view, is not simply the current theory, but the entire worldview in which it exists, and all of the implications which come with it. This is based on features of landscape of knowledge that scientists can identify around them.

​

There are anomalies for all paradigms, Kuhn maintained, that are brushed away as acceptable levels of error, or simply ignored and not dealt with (a principal argument Kuhn uses to reject Karl Popper's model of falsifiability as the key force involved in scientific change).

---

good luck

Thanks for the feedback so far. I hope that soon I can produce a final draft --- if anyone who's read the book has anything further to say, could they say it soon, please?

I was away and forgot about it. I'll get back to it this week.Sorry

I gave you my comments about the first half of the book. I'll do my best to finish up before Nosy Ned does.

Thank you both. I don't want to hassle you, you are, after all, doing me a favor. And yet I do feel a certain sense of keen anticipation ...

Hi, Dr. A. I don't know how much experience you've had with publishers, and my own is rather outdated, but unless things have changed drastically in the last thirty to forty-odd years, once your manuscript is accepted you can expect to get tons of expert help with it. A good editor will check every detail for accuracy and be knowledgeable about the trends in the field and their publishing history. It's always good to submit the best draft you can muster of course, but don't expect to present the publisher with a finished product. It can happen but it would be unusual. I wish you the best with your book, and especially that you find the perfect publisher.