Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:46:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5169 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.
Question is, is it still "scientific"? I'd still want to say yes.
> 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.
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 intercepted by a passing star and destroyed. All we have now
is the trajectory. Which is what makes us think that Halley's Comet came
from this particular asteroid group. Scientific? I'm still voting for 'yes'.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) Are you asking if post hoc reasoning is scientific? No--it's actually one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience, like palmistry or astrology or Creationism. (...) For the umpteenth time in this debate you have presented the falacy known as "the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
