Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Jul 2002 19:38:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5218 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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.
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.
> > 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'.
For the umpteenth time in this debate you have presented the falacy known
as "the receding target," which can be paraphrased as "yeah, but..."
How about this: Make your point and stick with it. Every time you get an
answer you attempt to retroactively change your question, and that's hardly
a means to advance understanding. Instead, you are giving yourself an out
so that you never have to adjust your thinking; you simply re-modify your
question and act as though no one can answer it.
In your re-modified example above, your prediction is now: "A comet that
came from the asteroid belt should have trajectory X." Then you test it
and, through observation, determine whether the comet has trajectory 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 form the asteroid belt.
Anyway, the comet comes, I believe, from the Oort Cloud.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) I think the issue here was my interpretation of your specific problem with Creationism wherein you said: (...) The issue I was attempting to discuss here (if you trace back) is with the 2nd item in your list: "does not make any predictions (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
