From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!news.ans.net!nynexst.com!gene Thu Jan 16 17:22:11 EST 1992
Article 2761 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!news.ans.net!nynexst.com!gene
>From: gene@nynexst.com (Gene Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Cargo Cult Science
Message-ID: <1992Jan15.225216.22125@nynexst.com>
Date: 15 Jan 92 22:52:16 GMT
References: <92Jan15.081805est.14473@neat.cs.toronto.edu> <1992Jan15.181608.20360@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@nynexst.com (For News purposes)
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Lines: 23

In article <1992Jan15.181608.20360@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> dlyndes@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>
>Scientific theories are NOT (in general) refutable!
>
> [ Stuff deleted ]
>
>The fact that the orbit calculated for mercury does not agree with the
>observed orbit did not and does not refute Newton.  It is perfectly
>reasonable to try to adjust I and S to get a better O, and this is
>exactly what happened for a couple of hundred years.

Newtons theory, like all scientific theories, is refutable, and,
in fact, was constantly refuted as your analysis makes clear.

A theory is refuted when post-observational fudging is needed.
Refutation is ever-present in science.

The reason Newton lasted in spite of its refutation is that it
required so little fudging. General Relativity came to replace it
partly becase GR requires less post-observational fudging.
-- 
Gene Miller		Phone 914 644 2834
gene@nynexst.com	Fax 914 644 2260


