Scientific method, much faith in it.

Continuing with the Harvard theme, their website of papers on general education makes for great reading. Two unforgettable quotes from Ed Glaeser's otherwise fine essay on the importance of scientific method in general education.

After all, the claim that a floral still life symbolizes the crucifixion is as much a testable hypothesis as anything in string theory.

Is the claim that the symbolic representations of artists are as much testable hypotheses as the 'things' in string theory itself a testable hypothesis? I wonder how Glaeser would propose testing his claim? Let's see. There is a phenomenon called, "Making claims about what are testable hypotheses." We submit that it is a testable hypotheses that any relationship conceived of by humans (A is related to B) is a testable hypothesis. God cast Lucifer... etc. Testable. Before Big Bang was a Merry-go-round. Testable. Perhaps Glaeser is being sarcastic. Neither is testable? Could we test that "many claims by humans are not testable hypotheses"?

One paragraph earlier:

My faith in the scientific method and my belief that Harvard’s goal should be to teach the
ability to apply this method seriously outside the classroom and beyond Harvard is the basis of this essay.

Neat that the basis for the goal is belief and faith. Not testable?