Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Jul 2002 20:36:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5780 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > 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.
I think the issue here was my interpretation of your specific problem with
Creationism wherein you said:
> Creationism is not falsifiable, does not make any predictions that can be
> tested, fundamentally undermines empirical observation, and is not repeatable
> in any meaningful sense. For these reasons Creationism is *NOT* science
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 that can be tested".
Now, I took that to mean something along the lines of "doesn't further
assist our understanding of the universe by creating useful information".
Now, given that, I attempted to find examples wherein there were no more
"further useful information" that could be obtained after showing that the
evidence supported the theory. And even in my first example, I said that I
was after the hypothetical situation in which there was no such information
available: "Regardless, even if there were no useful information that came
out of knowing that the Big Bang happened, would it no longer be a
scientific discovery?" However, you veered away from the hypothetical
question and showed other tidbits that (I thought-- maybe I'm wrong) came
out of the hypothesis of the Big Bang, effectively dodging the hypothetical
question by focusing on the specific example at hand. Ditto 2nd example.
Hence why I tried to revamp the example-- to demonstrate the point, because
you were focusing on the example, not the hypothetical.
Now, looking at what you're saying in *this* post (because I think I finally
got an example that works), it seems rather than "useful information" or
whatever I was interpreting, you instead meant "falsifiable". Which
immediately preceeded this item in your list. Which is why I assumed you
meant something different.
So, let's rephrase: I'd like to consider theories which have empirical
evidencial support, yet yield no *further* 'useful' information or *further*
areas in which to test (IE *IF* this theory is true, here's *another* thing
we could test/use based on and ONLY on its truth, apart from existing
evidence), as still plausibly scientific. And, I'm thinking you'd probably
agree. And just in case we still need an example, it sounds like the below
one works fine:
> 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.
Sounds like you think it's a scientific theory.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) Again, I've been basing my argument on the notion of the Xtian interpretation of Genesis re: infinite Creator. All bets are off once an infinite entity steps into the equation, so my objection stands. This is also, by the way, why studies into (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
