(urth) Recent human crash-landing on Sainte-Anneþ

[Dan'l Danehy-Oakes]

Lee,

You are using too narrow a definition of "prediction" and "falsifiability."

For sciences like paleontology, astrophysics, cosmology, etc., the
ability to create "experiments" is limited. What constitutes
"prediction" in a theory is that it successfully explains the
available evidence. What I mean is this: if in looking at fossils A,
B, and C I come up with a theory T that also turns out to successfully
explain fossils X, Y, and Z, then T has made a successful prediction,
and is more likely to be true; if, on the other hand, fossils X, Y,
and Z contradict T, then T has been falsified.

In the case of literary discussion, the "available evidence" is the
text at hand, as a whole and in parts.

If, in looking at Horn's experience in the pit, a reader comes up with
an idea I that also explains some details of his encounter with
He-Pen-Sheep, then I has made a successful prediction, and is more
likely to be true; if, on the other hand, the details of inhumi
reproduction contradict I, then I has been falsified.

I am not suggesting that literary criticism and theory have the
epistemological status of the sciences. I am, however, suggesting that
the methods of the sciences can be used to make literary criticism and
theory more useful.

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes