We see something in the world that appears mysterious to us, and we come up with an idea (“idea X”) that explains it.
We can come up with a scientific theory that is not based on observation. Most theories aren’t based on observation. Observation comes after. ‘I bet I can jump that fence’ comes before observing it.
be internally consistent with itself, as well as with all its implications. i.e. if X, then Y, and if Y, then Z. If we know Z to be obviously false, then we know X must be false.
Good!
be externally consistent with reality as we know it. We can’t find something in reality that makes X clearly unture.
Untrue not unture, otherwise great! Falsifiability is the component that makes a scientific theory different than any other theory.
Explain things we have already observed (that’s why we’ve come up with idea X in the first place)
Good! A valuable new theory will incorporate prior theories, including their errors and omissions, then add to them and address the errors or omissions. Again, all this can happen without observation (a lack of self-consistency, for example)
preferably, “make beliefs pay rent” – we should be able to use X to make predictions of the future, otherwise it doesn’t hold much value.
Good! Perhaps one could add the value of paying a good rent instead of a morally neutral rent (ie better homes over better bombs), but perhaps not.
An ommision in your work: scientific theories are all (all) provisionally true [edit: if they are held to be true at all]. Aside from limits of money / time / resources, it is always (always) acceptable to challenge a scientific theory. Anyone can, at any time, with any background. Results will be mixed and often support conventional wisdom. But not always.
“Conjectures and Refutations” by Karl Popper has what you’re looking for.
We can come up with a scientific theory that is not based on observation. Most theories aren’t based on observation. Observation comes after. ‘I bet I can jump that fence’ comes before observing it.
It’s more of a cycle of observation leading to theory leading to more observation and so on. “I bet I can jump that fence” comes before observing whether you actually can, but it comes after observing the fence and your jumping abilities. You wouldn’t decide you can jump that fence without first observing it.
AspiringRationalist: thank you for your reply. It has caused me to rethink what I wrote and hopefully be less wrong.
You and I agree that there is no special difference between observations before an experiment and after and experiment. It is not observation that makes an experiment scientific. It is also not the conjecture before an experiment that makes it scientific. It is the conjecture including the condition of its refutation that makes it scientific. My prior example would be better stated (as science) with: ‘if I repeatedly and earnestly try to jump that fence and do not, it is provisionally true that I cannot.’
We can come up with a scientific theory that is not based on observation. Most theories aren’t based on observation. Observation comes after. ‘I bet I can jump that fence’ comes before observing it.
Good!
Untrue not unture, otherwise great! Falsifiability is the component that makes a scientific theory different than any other theory.
Good! A valuable new theory will incorporate prior theories, including their errors and omissions, then add to them and address the errors or omissions. Again, all this can happen without observation (a lack of self-consistency, for example)
Good! Perhaps one could add the value of paying a good rent instead of a morally neutral rent (ie better homes over better bombs), but perhaps not.
An ommision in your work: scientific theories are all (all) provisionally true [edit: if they are held to be true at all]. Aside from limits of money / time / resources, it is always (always) acceptable to challenge a scientific theory. Anyone can, at any time, with any background. Results will be mixed and often support conventional wisdom. But not always.
“Conjectures and Refutations” by Karl Popper has what you’re looking for.
It’s more of a cycle of observation leading to theory leading to more observation and so on. “I bet I can jump that fence” comes before observing whether you actually can, but it comes after observing the fence and your jumping abilities. You wouldn’t decide you can jump that fence without first observing it.
AspiringRationalist: thank you for your reply. It has caused me to rethink what I wrote and hopefully be less wrong.
You and I agree that there is no special difference between observations before an experiment and after and experiment. It is not observation that makes an experiment scientific. It is also not the conjecture before an experiment that makes it scientific. It is the conjecture including the condition of its refutation that makes it scientific. My prior example would be better stated (as science) with: ‘if I repeatedly and earnestly try to jump that fence and do not, it is provisionally true that I cannot.’