Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:21:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5172 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> Well, I'll still pop in on this one. Point still is (I think) that a
> scientific theory need not make verifiable predictions in order to be
> scientific.
In an arena of two competing theories, the one that is able to make
testable predictions is stronger than and therefore preferable to the one
that is not so able. If the theory does not make testable predictions, you
can't really perform experiments to test the theory. Almost invariably,
theories that cannot make predictions are based on post hoc reasoning and
simply try to connect the dots of evidence already observed.
> Let's see if I can conjure up an example:
> Suppose we find an group of asteroids somewhere. We analyze the chemical
> makeup of the asteroids, we analyze their trajectories, and discover that
> there once was a planet, which matches all their trajectories. We date the
> collision that created it, and find out when it happened. A few years
> earlier (or, have we already done this?) we get a chemical composite for
> Haley's Comet. Flash back to the future. We notice that Haley's Comet has
> the same chemical compounds (matches 99.99%) as the ateroid grouping, and
> that the trajectory of the comet also matches. Conclusion? Haley's Comet
> came from the ateroid grouping. Now, offhand, I can't think of any
> predictions we could further make from this theory, but I'd still call it
> scientific...
Your *prediction* is this: "If Halley's Comet came from the asteroid
grouping, it should have chemical composition X." Then you test it and find
out if the comet has composition X. If it does, then you have another piece
of evidence to support your hypothesis that the comet came from the asteroid
group. If it does not, then either your hypothesis is incorrect and needs
to be adjusted, or the comet did *not* come from the asteroid belt.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) Question is, is it still "scientific"? I'd still want to say yes. (...) Alright, fine. Switch the example then (we can play this game for a while yet to come). Suppose we *don't* know the chemical makeup of Halley's Comet, because it gets (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) I know this ever-so-rarely ever happens, but I think I'm going to switch gears and join your team on this one, based on something that struck me after writing this post: (URL) that the Biblical Creation story *does* have evidence to support (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
