Replies

Support your statement to the effect that scientific theories do not attempt to rule out specific observations

You want it both ways. Just what do you believe? On separate posts you said,

"The theory of evolution rules out whole classes of obervations."

and

Yes, observations can prove theories wrong.

An observation is an observation. You simply make it. A theory cannot prove an observation wrong. Interpretations of what an observation means or the underlying causes of the thing observed are subject to scientific inquiry and debate. The observation itself, however, does not change. If I observe a ball to be red, then that is my observation. What causes the ball to be red (or what causes me to perceive that it is red) does not influence the fact that I observe the ball to be red.

You want it both ways. Just what do you believe? On separate posts you said,

1) "The theory of evolution rules out whole classes of obervations."
2) "Yes, observations can prove theories wrong."

Ah, I see your problem with the first statement, and I can understand the confusion. I was not as clear as I should have been, and I apologise. Allow me, if you would, to correct myself.

A theory makes specific predictions. Because of this, we can use the theory to rule out specific predictions. "If Theory A is correct, then Observation B is impossible." Scientists then direct their efforts towards creating Observation B. If they fail, Theory A has acquired a measure of support, if not, the theory is modified or rejected to account for the new evidence.

Dropping out of the abstract, Newton's Theory of Gravity ruled out burbles in planetary orbits. Mercury's orbit burbles. General Relativity sucessfully predicts the orbits of all planets in the Solar System, including the burbles in Mercury. It includes all the evidence Newton had, plus the new observations from Mercury.

That is what I meant when I said that theories rule out observations. Not that a theory ever takes precedence over a confirmed observation.

Does that help?