Dear Enezio & readers,

I do not think so. This is imho a sort of dialectics I guess. What about Thermodynamic?

Kind regards ...

It is possible that a theory that is currently unfalsifiable will become falsifiable in the future as it is developed. The main thing is that the theory must be fruitful and capable of development.

Hi Enezio E. de Almeida Filho a similar question should allow you to think about this the way I, as an engineer, think of it: Does an engineered product need to be buildable in order to contribute to good engineering? And the answer is, of course it needs to be. The difference between science and engineering is not so great as people think. Engineers build products that must be useful over the product's designed lifetime. A well engineered product is built with the funds available, does what it is supposed to do to a greater or lesser degree, and can stop working after its designed lifetime. The greater degree gives you good engineering.

Science is the building of "understanding products." If you have a scientific idea, you need to be able to take that idea and build understanding with it. If you can't do that, then you can't ever get to science at all. Understanding, as the product of a scientific endeavor, is normally implemented as some kind of theory. A theory that is good science (viz. a product that is well engineered) must be useful over its specified domain to a greater or lesser degree and that domain must be as wide as practicable. The greater degree and the wide domain give you good science.

Engineers build their products. Scientists test their theories. Testing is required to determine applicability over a specified domain, otherwise you'd have to take the idea's originator at his word. We might be willing to take an engineer at his word that his new engine will work, but that's a reliance on reputation, not good engineering.

The vast majority of theories on the origin of life are not good science. After reading them, I find that I understand no more about what life is than before I did. If you present me with a theory that cannot be tested, even via a thought experiment, then it's just an idea. We shouldn't call it a theory.

-leonard

Hi Leonard Timmons you write: The vast majority of theories on the origin of life are not good science. After reading them, I find that I understand no more about what life is than before I did.

This is one of the most difficult scientific problems. It must be taken into account that science is not capable of solving any problems, but only those for which adequate approaches have already been developed. Science, apparently, has not yet matured to solve the problem of the origin of life. In my opinion, the behavior of the main substance (water), as well as solutions has not been studied well enough.

Hi Lev Verkhovsky I agree with your statement: ...science is not capable of solving any problems, but only those for which adequate approaches have already been developed. The development of an "adequate approach," in my view is primarily a creative problem-solving process. It requires insight into the true nature of the thing you're investigating. For the origin of life, someone needs to have insight into the true nature of this extremely complicated process. I don't see this as a issue with the maturity of science, but an issue with the science culture we have developed (unless that's what you mean). Is the solution to what life is a matter of collecting more data and better data, or is it a matter of admitting more insightful people into the ranks of the scientific community? I know it's the latter.

We choose scientists from people who are really good at analysis and the idea is that we can arrive at synthesis through analysis. But that's not how you get to a solution that requires a truly creative leap. You really need to start with people who have a well-developed creative/insight impulse who can synthesize solutions from the available evidence. They may lack the analysis chops, but that can be hired out. Scientists use the term "multi-disciplinary" to indicate the need for more creativity in the process of coming up with possible solutions to the origin of life problem. However, it misses the analysis/synthesis problem and does not solve it.

I can say this because I solved the problem of the origin of life more than 30 years ago. It was so easy and getting someone to listen to me was so hard that I gave up. I was sure that someone else would have solved it by now. But no. I'm now on the difficult path to turn that solution into a proper theory, test it and exploit it.

-leonard

Leonard Timmons

>>>I solved the problem of the origin of life more than 30 years ago. It was so easy and getting someone to listen to me was so hard that I gave up.

With the advent of the Internet and scientific portals such as RG or viXra, it became possible to introduce your ideas to the whole world. Of course, each researcher decides for himself what to expose and what to keep secret.

Hi Lev Verkhovsky I'm not an academic and certainly not a scholar. My idea could be completely wrong and wrong on some kind of fundamental level. I also recognized that the probability that I could solve a problem that had eluded a lot of really smart people was really quite low. But the expected value of a solution could be in a reasonable range, especially if I could exploit the solution. However, if I were a researcher in the OOL field, I'd likely not give someone like me the time of day. So the only way to validate my theory would have been to publish it and to give up to others the ability to exploit it. I couldn't justify the effort, so I moved on.

Now that so much time has passed, I've recognized that getting some kind of peer review of my current work, that does not eliminate the possibility of exploiting it, is a social problem. I'll have to convince someone who will keep my work confidential, to review it. Then that person would need to recommend it to someone else who would also review it and recommend it. Then I could move up the reputation ladder to have someone with a substantial reputation say that I have something to contribute. Then as an independent researcher, I might get some funding source to pay attention. I don't see another method for an independent researcher to receive funding. So your recommendation is appreciated, but not one that I think I can take.

I'm not sure if this is an ethical issue or not. Suppose some employed researcher figured out some critical property of nature. One that was immediately exploitable. His company would have an interest in exploiting the discovery, but the company could not patent or otherwise protect a law of nature. They could, however, keep it as a trade secret. The question becomes one of how long they should keep it to themselves. What is the nature of their obligation to humanity in this respect? There is nothing stopping other people from solving the problem and and making use of that solution.

-leonard

Hello everyone, if this question has perplexed you, and if you're wondering if you're on theory holds up or want to prove it others, check out the following link. This lays out all the computational and authentication standards that would be historically, mathematically, and physically required to consider something a functional Unified theory.

We must do away with all petty arguments of what does and doesn't constitute a functioning Unified theory in verbal, or more increasingly and pointlessly technical ways.

Replacing this with rigorous academics and math.

. If you are confident in your theory, and would like to prove it, I suggest checking on the following link

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Challenge_Prove_Your_Theory

That should answer questions like these.

Leonard Timmons Lev Verkhovsky Marko Vitas Enezio E. de Almeida Filho

Yes, Leonard Timmons science is not only art (pure creativity), but also business and sports -- you need to make “profit” from your idea and get ahead of others (become a “champion”). All this is difficult, especially for independent researchers who are not part of any administrative structure. Yet the most valuable thing in science is good ideas, which should not remain unknown.

Although clearly stated by Popper in the first place, the falsifiability of a theory seems to me to be vague, confused and misleading. The so-called criteria used to show that a theory should be discarded are clearly biased towards maintaining the commonly accepted theories (and rejecting those that are considered false). And certain theories, considered 'true' by many, are considered 'falsified' by others (too many cases for which no definitive explanation can be given).

For example, the Darwinian theory is often said to fully explain biological evolution, but some authors claim that it is not falsifiable because any adaptationist 'just-so story' can be proposed to account for any biological trait or behaviour. Regardless of such a claim, the theory is still considered to be true. What is the conclusion to be drawn from such a situation?

My view is that, as far as science is concerned, the falsifiability criterion should be 'minimised', so to speak. This means that an allegedly non-falsifiable theory should not be rejected at the outset, but should be developed to discover its principles, assumptions and implications. In short, falsifiability should not be equated with science.