Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[John 6IX Breezy]

Words are important. Well-established means one thing and well-supported another (I read the Essential Criteria now). I do prefer the term well-supported, however, because we already saw that a theory that isn't well supported remains a theory. I asked you if theories get demoted when wrong, you said no. Other's have brought up examples of theories that are partially or completely wrong, and are still theories.

"Well-established" is beyond subjective. But at least "well-supported," though still in need of a threshold, is measurable.

A Theory is often true, but also, maybe not true. When a theory is also a hypothesis, it becomes elevated to the status of law.  But, when the unsupported law is only partly well-established, it may or not be demoted to a minimally-evidenced observation, yet to be demonstrated. When hypotheses are only minimally-evidenced observations, there is the potential for increased data testing to accumulate, and it could be elevated to a theory, but it wouldn’t be a theoretical hypothesis unless each constituent of the test results can be independently verified. I think it’s important we’re clear on these distinctions before moving forward in the conversation. Words are important.


😏

Hypothesis are predictions about the result of an experiment. Laws are summaries or descriptions for natural phenomenon. Theories are explanations or models for bodies of observations or laws. Yes, let's be clear.