(September 9, 2019 at 11:00 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Hmm I don't know what use explanatory power has, other than to say one explanation has more of it than another. The warfare between explanations is still fought by testing their hypotheses. My guess is that explanatory power belongs more to the philosophy of science than to science itself.

EDIT: Based on the criteria you referenced, there are too many variables that could lead to inbalances in power. For example, a broader explanation will have more power because it accounts for more facts. But as a scientist I may not want to work with something broad; I may want a specific explanation that accounts only for the facts I'm interested in.

So my final answer is that the concept explanatory power isn't unscientific, it's just not useful for scientists.

(September 10, 2019 at 1:26 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(September 9, 2019 at 11:00 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Hmm I don't know what use explanatory power has, other than to say one explanation has more of it than another. The warfare between explanations is still fought by testing their hypotheses. My guess is that explanatory power belongs more to the philosophy of science than to science itself.

EDIT: Based on the criteria you referenced, there are too many variables that could lead to inbalances in power. For example, a broader explanation will have more power because it accounts for more facts. But as a scientist I may not want to work with something broad; I may want a specific explanation that accounts only for the facts I'm interested in.

So my final answer is that the concept explanatory power isn't unscientific, it's just not useful for scientists.

I just noticed, first you identify as a christian, then not a christian (I think ex-christian is how you put it), now back to a christian (which you were all along). Why should I give anything you say any credibility?

I want my arguments to stand or fall on their own merit; you're welcome to read any accompanying references I provide, but I'm not looking for anyone's credibility.

Well, thus far, they fall. They probably work for you with something as close to an internal consistency that counts....but a diversion into how science is unscientific is a death spiral beyond that. May as well argue that circles aren’t circular.

I’m not sure what value that has for determining what’s literal and what isn’t, or how it helps you to decide between two equal explanations. I’m not sure that there actually is such a thing as two equal explanations to begin with.

(September 10, 2019 at 8:06 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: I’m not sure that there actually is such a thing as two equal explanations to begin with.

Since verification is rarely expected, evolution always produces multiple narratives and explanations for everything. I don't know the specific explanations proposed for the emergence of sacrifice, the way Acrobat wanted, but take the evolution of felines. Warren and O'Brien (1977) reconstructed a phylogeny in which lions and tigers are each others closes relative; Mattern and her colleagues (2000) constructed one in which jaguars and tigers are closest; and Warren and colleagues (2006) have one in which jaguars and lions are closest.

They all have their own reasons for their placements, but since phylogenies are nothing more than hypothesis, no one can say for sure what the true evolutionary history is.

References: 
Warren, J., O’Brien, Stephen. (1977). Phylogenetic reconstruction of the Felidae using 16S rRNA and NADH-5 mitochondrial genes. Journal of Molecular Evolution 44: S98–S116.
Mattern, M. Y., and McLennan, D. A. (2000). Phylogeny and speciation of felids. Cladistics 16: 232–253.
Warren, J., Eizirik, E., et al. (2006). The late Miocene radiation of modern Felidae: A genetic assessment. Science 311: 73–77.

-and what part of any of that is unscientific?

Further, does the mere existence of multiple explanations suggest, imply, or prove that the explanations are equal?

Finally, what effect does either contention....in any form, have on how or when a given decider takes something to be literal, or not?

(September 10, 2019 at 9:14 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: -and what part of any of that is unscientific?

How do you falsify a theory that predicts every possible outcome for the relationship between lions, tigers, and jaguars?

First, that’s a loaded question.

Prove that evolutionary theory predicts every possible outcome for that relationship.

You can’t....because it doesn’t.

Again I have to ask what relationship any of these contentions have to the decision between what is literal, or not.

---

I keep asking this because objections to biology in discussions of biblical literalism have a narrow range of applicability.

Rather than turn this thread into some doomed rant on how biology is wrong and unscientific....we might be able to more directly address those articles of faith that rely on them, why they rely on them, and how that compels the faithful to reject them.

For example, is a literal reading of some portion(s) of genesis requires for a Christian faith? What, in genesis, must be true in order for Christianity to be true? If a person believes that Christianity is true, might this form the basis of their metrics on what is and is not literal, or meant to be so?

(September 10, 2019 at 9:21 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Prove that evolutionary theory predicts every possible outcome for that relationship.

One paper predicts lions and tigers as closely related; the second that tigers and jaguars are closely related; the third that jaguars and lions are closely related. Those are all the possible combinations for that relationship.

Semantic equivocation. That isn’t -all- the possible relationships between them. The theory has excluded all but three, in your retelling.

Did it do so unscientifically? Are those scientists being unscientific? Are all three explanations truly equal. Upon what basis have you determined this....

.....and what relevance does it have to literalism or to a choice between explanations?