How could you falsify macroevolution?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Actually, I could check that... I'm not sure you are correct. The main reason you wouldn't do it is not because it only points at one spot on the earth (it in fact has a large field of view, and spysats are put up in constellations anyway), but because of the fuel costs to get to geosync rather than a different orbit.

Extra fuel costs are irrlevant to the whole cost of putting some 4 Billion dollar spy satelite up there. So do check, and see that you are incorrect about geosynchronous surveillance satellites. A wide field of vision at lower resolutiuon is not worth it. You want high resolution on a specific area of interest.

You can easily tell where a non-geosync satellite is too.

Yes, which is why the Indians were able to fool US satellites right before their 1998 nuclear bombs tests. Which is why "faith" is spy satellites is false faith.

We, and maybe Russia, are the only country with antisatellite weapons. It takes a lot of fuel to get to geosync.

And the soviets were our main enemies at the time most spy satellites were being put up there....

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap


When he question the use of "being able to falsify", as in having to prove wrong is necessary, he was.

If you check his example with the solar system again, you'll see he was claiming that sun's central position therein is unflasifiable in the Popperian sense. Yet you came along and said "Che is correct in my view". No matter what protestations you may write up now, that's giving the impression of not understanding.

Its not the ability to disprove but the ability to test experimentally that matters.

What, pray tell, would be the difference between falsifiability and testability be?

Or are you dragging up the falsifiable = false strawman again? If so, I suggest you let it lie if you want us to think you understand science.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Whoha


they are much higher up then normal satellites, if an enemy could strike one down, he could easily strike down a much lower satellite that is in a steady and predictable orbit.

Which means the surveillance information they would provide would be far less detailed than something lower. Hence why you would NOT use them for suveillance, but instead for gathering electromagnetic information, and for GPS.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist .
What, pray tell, would be the difference between falsifiability and testability be?

Hmm, which word more accurately describes the act one must undertake? Which word is likely to cause less confusion?

That difference. Sloppy writing. Somethign too many philosophers can be accused off.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by GePap
Hmm, which word more accurately describes the act one must undertake? Which word is likely to cause less confusion?

One doesn't have to undertake any act. The point is that a valid "test" of a hypothesis should result in either a falsification of the hypothesis, or a tentative acceptance of the hypothesis. "Falsification" is a restriction on the type of test which must be possible.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap


Hmm, which word more accurately describes the act one must undertake? Which word is likely to cause less confusion?

That difference. Sloppy writing. Somethign too many philosophers can be accused off.

So che is right because the reason he is wrong is he was confused with an infelicitous choice of word on Popper's part?

I quite agree that "testability" would have been a better choice of word, but I'm rather starting to doubt you have a point beyond continuing to argue in an attempt to save face.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
One doesn't have to undertake any act. The point is that a valid "test" of a hypothesis should result in either a falsification of the hypothesis, or a tentative acceptance of the hypothesis. "Falsification" is a restriction on the type of test which must be possible.

Can any test falsify something as large as a modern scientific theory, which is made up of many hypothesis?

[Nostromo]

Popper made a list of 5 tests for scientific theories. If a theory passes all 5 tests, it is considered to be scientific.

I admit that Popper's definition of science is more subtle and complex than I let on earlier. So I was unfair. There are two parts to his definition, a logical part and methodological part.

The logical part says that an hypothesis is scientific if it can be refuted on the basis of observation or experiment.

But, early on, Popper found out that the logical part alone wasn't sufficient. In order to do science, you not only have to formulate refutable theories, but you also have to behave or proceed like a scientist.

One of Popper's example is marxist theory. According to him, marxist theory was refutable at first and, hence, was scientific. But after that things degenerated. The problem was that Marxists were too dogmatic and used every dirty trick in the book in order to save their theory from refutation. Thus Marxist theory, while refutable in principle, became irrefutable in practice (and hence pseudoscientific), thanks to the Marxist's intellectual dishonnesty. Now we know why Che doesn't like Popper

That's where the methodological part comes in. How should real scientists proceed or not? Popper formulated his methodology in order to answer this. And its full of methodological rules.

Btw, where did Popper made that list of 5 tests? I don't remember reading that.

Creationism has no explanatory power and it can't make predictions.

Are you denying that the claim that God created the universe 10 000 years ago, which is a core claim of creation science, can't be or hasn't already been refuted?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

So che is right because the reason he is wrong is he was confused with an infelicitous choice of word on Popper's part?

I quite agree that "testability" would have been a better choice of word, but I'm rather starting to doubt you have a point beyond continuing to argue in an attempt to save face.

My point is criticsm at Poppers use of language, which you seem to agree with.

What did Popper say about the "Laws of Thermodynamics"? Does he approve of naming anything a Law? Of seeming to state it has been proven beyond a doubt?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Extra fuel costs are irrlevant to the whole cost of putting some 4 Billion dollar spy satelite up there.

That's complete bull****!

So do check, and see that you are incorrect about geosynchronous surveillance satellites. A wide field of vision at lower resolutiuon is not worth it. You want high resolution on a specific area of interest.

You do realize that most spy satellites are in highly eccentric orbits where they spend a long time very far away from the Earth (but over their target) and a short time very close to the Earth on the other side of the planet from their target, right?

You can easily tell where a non-geosync satellite is too.

Yes, which is why the Indians were able to fool US satellites right before their 1998 nuclear bombs tests. Which is why "faith" is spy satellites is false faith.

Which supports my point, right?

Anyway, are you claiming that a tall tower would be superior in finding nuclear bomb tests?

And the soviets were our main enemies at the time most spy satellites were being put up there....

And at that time neither we nor the Soviets could hit one.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Which means the surveillance information they would provide would be far less detailed than something lower. Hence why you would NOT use them for suveillance, but instead for gathering electromagnetic information, and for GPS.

See above again. Spy satellites don't want to be close to the Earth when they are over the target because then they have very little time in which to look at it. Increased resolution is cheap, time over target is not.

[Kuciwalker]

Spy satellites use Molniya orbits

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That's complete bull****!

Right. So the extra fuel will cost, what? 100 Million dollars?

You do realize that most spy satellites are in highly eccentric orbits where they spend a long time very far away from the Earth (but over their target) and a short time very close to the Earth on the other side of the planet from their target, right?

I believe you have that backwards. Close to earth over target, far form earth when not.

Which supports my point, right?

No, since if you can fool a satellite with high resolution over the exact area you will be working in, how hard is it to fool a satellite with poor resolution.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap


My point is criticsm at Poppers use of language, which you seem to agree with.

That I agree doesn't mean I think it's relevant.

What did Popper say about the "Laws of Thermodynamics"? Does he approve of naming anything a Law? Of seeming to state it has been proven beyond a doubt?

I don't know.

I also don't know where the notion of law = beyond doubt comes from. A "law", in the original sense, is after all not a description but a prescription, open to neither test nor doubt.

[GePap]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMINT

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_satellites